Reporting the basic dim along with the positional tolerance can and more often than not will be used to trouble shoot machining/manufacturing problems. This issue points out one of the main concerns I see with most CMM softwares that have GD&T capability. Most CMM programmers/operators are used to programming the systems in a way that can be used to report machining problems. But the purpose of GD&T is to clearly define the engineering intent, not the manufacturing/machining process. This creates a general conflict between how a part is toleranced and how a part is inspected. More often than not, the inspector wants to 'inspect' the part in such a way they can trouble shoot a problem, but the GD&T is not conducive to provide the results in such a way. I have been in an ongoing debate on exactly how my companies software should output GD&T results in such a way that may help with both requirements (engineering intent and manufacturing). This is not an easy debate especially since everyone in my group understands CMM output as it pertains to alignments and origins. They have a hard time separating alignments, origins and datums. Throw transformations on top of this issue and at the end of the day, they all think i'm crazy.

All this to say that there is a place and time for outputting basic dimensions with the GD&T results. In fact, thats how I found this thread. I was looking for any industry driven standard for outputting GD&T results. This would also require some work on the DMIS standard to incorporate some of the more complex issues that come with reporting the transformation matrix's.
I've said way to much. I prolly should have started a new thread.