Looks like your off to a great start, one of Hans former pupils is now my teacher, and I'm learning a ton. And you are studying in Stockholm, which is to me one of the most amazing cities in the world.
I think sight-size is a solid tool for learning, but I'm not sure I'd want to use it as a working method later on, comparative measurement is a lot more flexible, especially for subject matter, like people, that have a tendency to move and fidget.
I'm just a student myself, so I can't really comment on Hans feelings about sight-size as a teaching tool, but with regards to the origins of sight-size:
I know Hans argues that simply placing the canvas next to the model is not sight-size, and it makes sense to make that argument if you intend to infer that sight-size was invented by Paxton, as a very notable 19th century artist is known to have painted many portraits in this manner.
From John Collier's "The Art of Portrait Painting" (1905), speaking about Sargent's methods:
I'd think that Sargent would have also taken advantage of the situation and transferred measurements & angles, but using a brush handle instead of thread. Darren Rousar's website has more historical information on sight-size, including additional discussion of the essay Hans mentions in his writings, and the notion that sight-size is not just mechanical reproduction:
http://www.sightsize.com/misconceptions.html
Bookmarks