I may have been a bit unclear. It's not that I think all Sound and Scenic cues should be descriptively named and called; just some, when it's more helpful to do so. And really, LX as well.
For example, If there's 300+ LQs in a show and they're all a matter of hitting the GO button, EXCEPT for the cue between LQ266 and LQ267, which is for the operator to flash a Submaster in time to the audience's applause, then I would prefer to call that cue as Lites Sub 1... GO, or something similarly descriptive. Or at least, in the standby I would describe the cue, as in "Standby LQ267.5: Flash Sub 1. ... LQ267.5... GO," or something similar. Cause how often does a LBO follow a cue sheet, even early in a run?
Likewise, I do prefer to number or letter SQs, and really it depends on how the show is weighted in terms of types of cues, and between you, the designer, and the operator how you name and call them. Mac, if your show was consistently as complex as you indicated, then yes, I probably would have gone with straight numbering for each and every sound cue action, as you did, and rely on Sound Op to follow his cue sheet closely. It'd be laborious and silly for me to call each and every board setting for the op- that IS what cue sheets are for. (Mind you, there's an awful lot of regional work out there where you may be working with rather inexperienced ops who may really need some major hand-holding. I've more than once had to call board presets or mic cues for green operators.)
But sometimes it might make more sense to call the cues descriptively. For instance, imagine a hypothetical sequence where 3 cues are running at once and they all have to be taken out in very quick succession, and sometimes in different order, depending on the precise stage action at the time. I might prefer to call them MD1-Out, CD-Out, and MD2-Out, rather than SQ25, SQ 27, and SQ26.
And of course, Board Ops should generally be depended on to run their own EQ, Volume shifts, etc, but sometimes it can make total sense to call it. Say you have a straightforward Sound show, with all very discrete cues that you call one after the other- totally easy to number every cue. But say there's just like one weird point in the play where a single cue gets an important volume boost on a specific actor's line. I'd feel remiss if I didn't differentiate that cue from the others in some way, either in the Standby or the call itself.
Do you get my drift now? Does it make sense what I am saying?
Also, I like the method Matt noted:
Sound Cue 5 - Start the cue
Sound Cue 5.5 - volume change
Sound Cue 5.9 - Sound Out
It's similar to my method, by helping to contain the discrete cue within the artificial descriptors of the numbers.
Oh, and btw, I don't think I've ever heard of calling Out cues "Prime," or calling any cues "Prime" for that matter. Granted, I'm sure many many people do, but I certainly know of at least 50 or so Sound people who never did so on any of my shows. Maybe it's less common regionally? I'm just saying there's an awful lot of theatre professionals out there and it'd be downright silly of ANY of us to assume that ANY of our experiences were the norm across the entire profession.