We have fewer distinct bloodlines now than we used to when there were large breeding kennels, as there were 30+ years ago. Then you could very often look at a Golden, and know whose breeding was behind it, as each of the influential kennels had quite a distinct "look" or phenotype. There is still a bit of that around, but I find more and more breeders now do not have that look that is distinctively theirs. Your girl has a lot of Asterling in her pedigree's foundation (note that when you look at her COI from 10 to 12 generations there is a notable rise in COI because of the concentration of those Asterling dogs). Aruba really was fundamental to the Asterling breeding program, and she was quite a distinctive bitch in looks, and that carried through in the phenotype you saw from them. Gold Rush, Faera, Rush Hill, and Malagold all also have quite distinctive phenotypes, while still being possessing general breed type. In Canada you would see this with Kyon, in England with Stanroph, in Scandinavia with Dewmist, and so on. If you go through k9data or standfastdata or the GRCA yearbook or the UK GRC yearbooks and look at pictures of dogs from each of these kennels you will start to note common features and characteristics shared by dogs coming from each breeding program (and I am speaking less of colour and more like things such as angulation, head characteristics [muzzle, eyes, ear shape, earset], and outline, and those sorts of fundamental physical aspects).
Often this sort of distinctive style comes from quite intensive use of linebreeding to set type, and also to only using phenotypically similar dogs when outcrossing. Saying type-to-type in describing a breeding, can really mean two things: genotype and phenotype. Most people use the phrase when referring to a phenotype-to-phenotype breeding, and use the term linebreeding when doing a genotype-to-genotype breeding.
Some breeders are fanatically opposed to any linebreeding, despite it being the tool by which overall breed type was set. Essentially, without it, we would not have a breed. Some of the less educated anti-linebreeders will only do a breeding if it is low COI and without any shared ancestors in the first five generations, but make their selections based only on the paper and not on the dogs themselves. A better outcross is done to avoid multiplying the impact of a dog who carries with it health issues or temperament problems or structural issues, but uses a sire and dam who resemble one another physically, so while the pedigrees of the dogs in the breeding may be diverse compared to one another there will still be physical predictability in the offspring. When you do this, you are often doing it to build more genetic options into your breeding program. I have done these sorts of breedings, and like them. I did it with my Trey X Breeze litter, and what I got from it was part of my rationale in going to Trooper(who is a Trey grandson) for her last litter. As a young dog, Trooper looked exactly like Breeze's Trey son, Baron. So even though the pedigree is more open, I do not expect surprises in terms of structure and physical characteristics, and I am looking to bring in some of the wonderful working attitude he has been proven to produce when bred to girls with a pedigree similar to Breeze's.
As to knowing what is in the lines presnt in your dog's pedigree, it comes down to knowing the strengths and dangers lurking in the pedigree (which often people are reluctant to share unless they really get to know you and are sure you are committed to the breed, and will not go on a witch hunt--some breeders have really been burned and so are cautious--but there are no perfect dogs, remember--there are issue present in EVERY pedigree) So, as a for instance, with Breeze's daughter Bonnie from the Trey litter, I will not linebreed on what is behind Trey on the sire line, as undershot and wry bites are a known issue there with a certain dog--I would not multiple him in a breeding I did with her. But there are other dogs in that pedigree, I would gladly double up on to bring forward.
If you are trying to correct a structural issue, a line breeding on a dog who was strong in that feature and known to be prepotent in throwing it will be more effective. An outcross breeding is not going to be as effective in correcting a structural issue, because there will not be the shared genes for the strong expression of that trait. An exception to this can be the case where one of the pairing is heavily linebred on a dog prepotent for the trait (physical or performance), and the other has a very open pedigree--you can see this in the Firemark breedings of Pony who had a very low COI and the pups from each of her litters very much favour their sires. Then to capitalize on that, one would have to breed back into the pedigree from which the trait came--which if you look at Firemark breedings for performance, is what Melanie has done.
Many people will also say that it is really only the first 5 generations that matter, as the % of contribution of each dog decreases so much the further you get back in the pedigree. However, I think it is important to look at those extended pedigrees and run influence tables, as backmassing can make a dog you do not immediately see very influential in your pedigree. There are some very influential dogs in our pedigrees whose descendents have been bred together, who were the product of breeding of litter sisters to the same stud dog, or brother stud dogs etc.
It is really quite fascinating, and takes a long time to dig into at a deeper level (which is one of the reasons I was in the breed 12 years before I ever bred a litter!)