But I'm more concerned on the flop "cbet or not" strategy. What are your fundamentals in a general way ?

Look at the texture, pick the appropriate strategy. Its a very broad question, there is 100s of cbet strategies that could work out fine in this spot if you balance them well.
If you feel unsecure wich strategy is best i would recommend cbetting very high frequency for a small sizing, expection for a few boards. But first study the turn strategy behind it and how you need to defend if you play such a high cb%. For example if you allways cbet small you will get check raised and floated more, so you probably have to peel lighter again x/r and call down lighter if action goes xc xx bet than if your range is more polarized.
But there is upsides that you simplify the gamethree, not have to worry about checking back a balanced range. And could work very well as an exploit against weak players.

I prefer a mixed strategy, wich will still be high cbet %, but also include some checkbacks. But that might not be the best idea if you are not working with solvers or watching videos from players that advocate the same strategy.
I had best results with that strategy, because i feel more comfortable how to procced with my strategy. But i know alot of players just playing a low sizing and very high cb% strategy that are doing very well also.

In 3bet pots on Q+ -high dry boards BTN vs CO I prefer to cbet 100% for about 35-40% pot as that gets a lot of folds. As the BTN 3better you have a NUT and RANGE advantage making high small cbet% very lucrative.

akissv7 is good to mention the effect of range advantage on cbetting strategy
The equity of two players' ranges on a certain board should be the overriding factor that dictates the frequency with which each player bets.
Note that leading is included in an optimal strategy more frequently when the caller has an equity advantage; solvers don't care about who the aggressor was on the previous street, they only care about EV.
Polarization is also a factor; although it bears more on bet sizing than frequency.

Although bets are commonly described as for value or as a bluff, Michael Acevedo points out in his book that a bet being a value bet or a bluff is actually a result of the bet, and not the reason to bet. If you 'value' bet the 2nd nuts on the river, and your opponent calls with the nuts, was your bet a value bet? If you turn 3rd pair into a bluff, and your opponent hero calls with worse, was that a bluff?
He goes on to say that there are two reasons to bet - to realize equity, or to prevent your opponent realizing equity. A value bet is actually just made to realize equity, and a bluff prevents your opponent realizing equity.
This description also covers other kinds of bets - for example, a block bet. A block bet helps to realize equity, because although it is somewhat likely you get called by a better hand, you only had to pay x amount to show down rather than a larger amount.
Also, a cbet with 99 on Q75 could be called a block, and/or a bet that essentially avoids turning your hand or range face up (to quote Galfond). If you check back every underpair, your opponent can play many turns very aggressively and thereby prevent you realizing equity. Betting 33% with 99 as well as the stronger parts of your range helps to realize equity.

As far as deciding which hands to bet and which to check, one consideration should be board coverage (I think range diversity is another term)
.For example, if you never check top pair, and the turn pairs the top card, again your opponent can play very aggressively and you will have a hard time defending on future streets.

I think that going through some different flops with some kind of equity calculator should be very helpful to get an idea of how different boards interact with ranges.

At the table, it is useful also to think about the distribution of hand strengths in each player's ranges - when you 3bet the BTN vs LJ and the board comes 653, your opponent should have all the sets and you will have few, (if you are 3betting good ranges) leading to a lot of checking back and betting small - your opponent should be more polarized than you meaning that many of your hands don't want to commit a large amount and get raised.

Highly recommend Modern Poker Theory where Michael has done a lot of work and data analysis to present some really useful concepts and heuristics on this (and every aspect of the game)

Of course! For a recent solver based work though I don't think anything compares at the moment

Although for something only on cbetting maybe yes look elsewhere as well

Example 1:

Bet smaller. I like 25-40% pot. The issue with betting 60-70% is that the calling range for that sizing is going to have Qx with a high frequency so you value you own yourself. Agree with the block bet.

Example 2:

I think we should be betting with a high frequency on our Ax & Kx high boards. The trouble with checking behind so villain can bluff is that they when they lead into us on turns they actually won't be bluffing and will continue on brick rivers, extracting two streets from us.

I like the check-back-call-down line if I know villain is aggressive and tends to bluff.

Example 3:

Same as example 2.
Villain won't be check raising us often. They will let us barrel when they hold Ax that decided not to 4bet. 25-40% sounds about right.