You certainly bring up a few important issues...
With regards to why it is used and re-used, I suppose that, at one level, it is the version which was adopted by certain influential people and esoteric initiatic groups, and that hence it will continue to be worked, meditated on, and written about in years to come.
Does the pattern on that particular version of the Tree make sense? Personally, I tend to think it does - very much so, even though I do not consider it as one which should be adopted.
It makes sense because it follows a very straightforward pattern. Emerging from the higher sefirot downwards, each of the 'paths' (with some significant and 'sensible' exceptions) are allocated the Major Arcana in sequence (after altering the sequence by placing the Fool as zero, and interchanging the Justice and Strength cards).
Of course, other patterns make as much or more sense, depending on how one is working Kabalistically. For example, the Tree pattern favoured by A. Kaplan (which of course makes no mention of the Tarot) also has 22 paths with Hebrew letter association. Some depictions of the Tree of life, including some important early ones, have not 22 but only 16 'paths' (which together with the ten Sefirot adds to 26, the value of YHVH).
The continental tradition, following Wirth, has the first ten cards of the Major Arcana (beginning, of course, with the Magician as the first card) directly upon the Sefirot, in their order of emanation.
But, again, the Kircher pattern does, in my opinion, make sense.
For the Tarot, two questions of central importance arise when considering the Tree of Life. The first is whether there is a Hebrew letter association/correlation to be made. The second, whether or not the answer to the first is in the affirmative, is how the Major (and maybe minor) Arcana are to be placed upon the Tree, and which version of the Tree best makes sense.
These, I would suggest, need to be answered by studying each of the Kabalah and the Tarot independently of each other.
In my opinion, this is what Mathers, Wescott, Waite and many others did, and in great detail given the limitations of available materials at the time. I am always both amazed and highly respectful of the incredible work they did. With such background work, to dismiss the Kircher Tree needs to be made with insight - as I'm sure Alobar is here making. Insight which suggests that, despite the work others before have undertaken, there appears something fundamentally mistaken about the particular pattern of the Tree adopted from the various other possibilities which seem to have 'better' roots in tradition.
This could certainly develop to be a very interesting thread, especially if comments are forthcoming to the defense of the Kircher Tree...