Back in the 60's and 70's I always bareshafted my target tackle (freestyle fingers, recurves, X7's, heavy points and spin wings), and I still believe this is still the correct way to go for a target bow.
I carried the bareshaft process forward with my barebow hunting tackle and found too many occasions when well tuned bareshafts reacted quite differently when fletched. I found it best for me to just tune the fletched arrow to the bow and my shooting style. Target archery and bowhunting have little in common - that's just my observation.
I have no hunting arrow flight issues (using two different types of carbons, Beman's and AD's), they fly straight and true and fast with field points, judos or broadheads. The GPP and fletch cut and FOC and point types don't matter as much as gets touted. I can make most any fletched arrow work well out of my D or r/d longbows with a bit of tweaking here and there at best.
As I was careful to say, "... for me" - I'd never knock what works for others.
There are a *LOT* of factors that will determine what arrow type and spine will work best with what bow and what archer - the archer plays a key role, as your form, physique and aiming method can radically alter the arrow spex.
IMO, some of my opinions on matching arrows to bows and archers ...
(soapbox on)
the closer the arrow plate is to the center of the riser, the far less that spine matters, if at all.
carbon arrows have a FAR greater range of dynamic spine than static spine, which is the reason all carbon manufacturers list a very broad range of static spine for one shaft type and spine. dynamic spine is most important.
if you're a bowhunter, spine will matter less that for a target archer, because target archers need to remove as many variables as possible and always shoot with the same upright stance and vertical bow. we don't. not ever.
carbons LOVE to be pushed hard. this means that you want to start off with a weak spined carbon shaft. at my draw length and arrow length, and with the 250-350 grains up front that i use, the beman charts tell me i should be shooting a 340, instead a 500 fits the bill for me best. that's two spine ranges lower than recommended. partly due to listing static spine, which for carbons is plain dumb.
figure to shoot around 10gpp. this means an efficient transfer of energy from the limbs, through the string, to the arrow, and the arrow will have enuf mass weight to absorb it all. not so good things happen when going much under 9gpp. in fact bumping up higher will yield more benefits, such as less noise on release and more release and inflight bow/arrow "stability".
how you aim plays a critical part of how the arrow will fly, regardless of the arrow's spine. yes. read that again. if you learn to aim the arrow (as all old time longbow archers did), and not the bow, spine is nearly meaningless. this is one reason why howard hill could pick an arrow from the quivers of 10 different archers and put all of them in the bull at 30 yards. aiming the arrow was greatly discussed by jim ploen (21st century bows, and a champion target archer and accomplished hunter) in articles he wrote for instinctive archer.
(soapbox off)