Yes, so far it does seem quite clear that "do this and live" vs. "live and do this" has far more historical support as a summary of Law/Gospel than imperative vs. indicative.
At the very least, can it really be argued that this distinction is a Reformed Law/Gospel distinction?
Marty and Matthew have presented a pretty compelling positive case that the Puritan Law/Gospel distinction was a distinction between the CoW (Do this and live) and the CoG (Live and do this).
Conversely, it seems that those who are arguing in this thread for a Law/Gospel distinction of Imperative/Indicative have only presented quotes of several Reformers who insist upon a Law/Gospel distinction. The mere existence of a Law/Gospel distinction, though, hardly establishes the case if the author quoted was not arguing for the Imperative/Indicative distinction.
In other words, my perception of this interchange has been that the response to challenging that the Law/Gospel distincition is Imperative/Indicative is the suggestion that the Law/Gospel distinction is being denied and nobody is interacting with the suggestion that the Law/Gospel distinction has a different Reformed pedigree. At the very least, it seems honesty in the substance of the discussion would be to interact on that point rather than accusing others of denying the distinction altogether.