wrote:
Under the old procedures, had this not been a TAA procedure I would
have
accepted no lower than 2,800 and done the course reversal, making it
clear to ATC that I would do the course reversal.

What is inconsistent about any of that?

As stated, sounds good to me. ;-) But the key phrase is "had this not
been a TAA procedure". Your earlier statements seemed to indicate you
were not drawing a distinction between a TAA and a random RNAV
approach.

I may have not drawn the distinction earlier until the TAA aspects sunk
in.

I am surprised that an RNAV IAP with TAAs even exists in a major metro
TRACON area. The decision to accept TAAs has been on a center/TACON and
sometimes regional basis. Some regions have rejected the concept
entirely. Most major TRACONS have rejected them. They have little
value where radar coverage and MVAs exist. All Memphis probably uses is
the T configuration, which is much more common than a T with TAAs.

Here's what I infer from your above paragraph:

With a TAA approach (such as the one under discussion), even under the
old procedure, it is ok to be cleared direct to the straight-in IAF at
an altitude below the sector altitude, as long as the altitude is
compatible with the minimum intermediate altitude and at or above MVA.

If you disagree with that, then I'd like to explore further why this
might be so,

If I said that earlier. I think you might have said something like
that. ;-) But, I am not going to go back and figure it out. Suffice it
to say that a clearance prior to the new procedure does not negate the
TAA sectors, unless it were a vector to within the intermediate segment.

I suspect Memphis doesn't concern themselves at all with the TAAs, but
that is supposition on my part based on how badly the TAA program is
going nationally.