For us, the parameters under the return requirement (Cost of equity and WACC) are ultimately just a means to an end. The most important thing for us is that CoE and WACC genuinely reflect the return requirement (=risk level) that the market demands from the company. We absolutely do not mechanically plug in numbers and blindly use the figure that comes out. For example, beta is manually determined by the analyst (as a rule of thumb, 1.0 is a company with a normal risk level and a range of about 0.7-1.5), and not elegantly calculated from historical stock prices. If calculated from historical stock prices, Piipo’s beta would probably be ultra-low because it trades so infrequently. That doesn’t sound very smart. Focus on the CoE and WACC end results, not the underlying parameters.
And a direct answer to a direct question, of course it has, quite often 
The fact is that DCF is the “sanity check”, not a recommendation-driving factor. Of course, the DCF must be in line with the analysis, e.g., we should never have a target price higher than the DCF with a positive recommendation (it’s intellectually a bit dishonest to say “buy this company” even if it never generates enough cash flow to justify this value). In my opinion, it’s very naive to use DCF directly as a target and the only driver in a recommendation, because DCF is so incredibly sensitive to a few individual parameters, and it is ultimately just the sum of one person’s subjective opinions.