Okay, John should jump in here to correct anything that I've gotten wrong...
What he states is that for urine jobs, we all use (or should) enzymes for the digestion of the urine salts....the water and enzymes reactivates the dried urine....
A lot of the time, if you flush the enzymes out with fresh water and a water claw, you are pulling the still re-activated urine out, but not all of it, before the enzymes can digest it all.....thus leaving urine in the carpet, that you have to flush and re-flush, wetting the backing and padding and subfloor even more....
If you leave it on the urine long enough, he states that the urine is digested completely by the enzymes, and is no longer urine, and doesn't smell anymore.
Why not leave the enzymes in the backing/pad/subfloor to do their job completely, and clean to remove the stain from the area?
Like I said, I just about dropped my waterclaw on my foot when I heard him postulate this, as we are all taught that source removal is the first step in odor control....but if you digest the urine and break it down until it is no longer urine, did you not do the same thing?
I haven't been brave enough to try this yet, but John does it all the time....
So, think about it for a while before just rejecting it outright...