By the way, I think that one of the key things that makes the refresh with rebate concept fail to satisfy for many people (myself included) is that rebates are constant, rather than relative, which really encourages min-maxing tendencies.
Consider the case where I want to play a Faerie. I know I'm going to get the standard Faerie Catch package, which is worth +4 accoring to the RAW (despite examples in OW that indicate otherwise). Why would I ever consider getting only -2 refresh worth of Toughness/Recovery, when I can get -4 refresh worth for the same net cost, or -6 refresh worth for only 1 additional refresh? (Does this sound a bit like the orginal post? It should.)
Or, if I'm playing some more customized template (non-Changeling Scion or Emmisary, for example) and I wanted to take Inhuman Toughness, why would I ever attach to it a Catch worth more than +1 rebate, since I won't get any additional rebate for making the Catch inconvenience me more?
One answer to this might be 'because it makes sense for the character', and I understand that sort of answer. But the system encourages people to favor utility over story, which is odd given the nature of the game.
I would fix this by doing two things:
First, by using a story-driven interpretation of rebates, as I've described previously. Basically, interpret rebates as the player's vote as to how often the Catch will come into play, with +0 being almost never and +3 being fairly regularly.
Second, by scaling the rebate. For example, a +3 rebate turns into a rebate of +1 per tier (tier = -2 refresh worth) of applicable power, a +2 rebate turns into +1 every other tier starting with the first, and +1 rebate is +1 every third tier starting with the first. Or something along those lines.