I might have tried that myself, without consulting a web article, becauseEd said:
all the partitions are on the one disk and not spanned.
But, no matter what you're doing with TestDisk, the biggest liability,
is that the size computed isn't right. I don't know if TestDisk has
any "divisible by 63" preferences, like some Partition Managers I know,
and any time you're doing anything like this, either the size can be
modified slightly, the starting offset, or the spacing between partitions.
Sometimes, even the order of the partitions in the new partition table
are wrong (which causes boot.ini to need an ARC path correction, or
whatever the equivalent of that would be in the BCD of a Win7/Win8 install).
Reversal of partition order, can be causes by the previous use of a Partition
Manager. As long as you know how to hand edit a boot.ini, you can fix that.
Partition Magic did that to me once, when transferring partitions from one
disk to another, and it required using another tool later, to have the
partitions reversed again, preventing Windows from booting.
So, yes, I like TestDisk for these kinds of experiments, but even in the
simplest of situations (rebuilding a Basic disk), it can make spaghetti out
of the disk drive. As long as the users "knows what the answer is" and has
a fair idea of what sensible numbers would be for the partitions, then "go for it".
I've probably already told my story about the "deleted partition". I had
a disk with four partitions, deleted one, and later, needed to use TestDisk.
TestDisk found all four partitions, but the end of the third partition,
overlapped the fourth partition. (And that's because, the fourth partition
really should not have been there - it was nominally "deleted".) What
I've learned about this, is in future, if I delete a partition,
I'm going to write zeros over the space with "dd", so TestDisk can't find it
And then when it scans, it'll only find three.