Let's just consider this with all the "ifs" and "buts".
Vapour checks arrest the passage of water vapour through a material, e.g. insulation.
Cavity construction allows moisture laden air to be vented more quickly from the cold side of the insulation + building paper so that the vapour-checked air passing through the insulation cannot build it up in the construction.
Its a bit like a bath with a large outlet and a dripping tap - it'll never fill.
A vapour proof insulation on the cold side of a timber frame could trap moisture in the frame - accepted.
That's like putting in a reasonably well-fitting plug in the bath - it'll tend to fill, given time.
However it is difficult to conceive of a granular fill insulation that can compact sufficiently to be fully water proof, never mind vapour proof.
Let us assume that the cavity fill insulation isn't 100% vapour-proof.
As long as the rate it passes vapour exceeds that at which the vapour-checked insulation admits it, that would be like putting a square plug in the round outlet.
The taking away of moisture might be at a reduced rate, but unless that rate falls below the rate of admission through the vapour-check, no build up can occur.
My concern is that the component "bits" of the cavity fill might provide surfaces for the moisture laden air to condense on, and that these droplets could flow down through any cavities and could find their way back into the dwelling unless the ope and frame penetrations were adequately detailed.
I'm sort of being the devils advocate here and all this is theoretical posturing on my part.
It would be useful to know if anyone had tried it and whether the results supported my view or sydthebeat's
