I personally think the level of tech at this year's Runoffs were both appropriate and necessary. The fact that 4th place was also torn down after a podium finisher was DQ'd but later overturned is definitely unfortunate... no question.
If it is possible to overturn the result from a tech procedure by a protest and/or appeal, there is clearly an issue with either that procedure, and/or the way it was performed. The go no-go gauges are ideal for the head throats and chambers, in that they are purposely produced to be slightly forgiving to the tune of about 0.005" over size. I think Cory is a great guy, drove an incredible race, and had absolutely zero intent of trying to sneak something through tech. Bottom line though, is if tool drops in, it's not just close, it's over size... no question. Even he agreed with that!
In the same way, I think all measurements should follow the same idea of "tolerance" into the measurment. I DO NOT think tech should be able to disqualify a competitor for being over on compression by an amount that is less than the accuracy of the tools and/or process to measure it. For example, the Whistler's documentation says it accurate to +/-0.2. By that regard, you should not be able to disqualify a 99 that whistles 9.7. Perhaps this would lead to a CC test, but not a DQ. There again though, Even the holy grail of CR test's (CC'ing) has tolerances associated with it. It's not hard to calculate. You just use the same formulae, only use tool accuracy numbers instead of measurements (ie. 0.05cc for any buret measurement, or .0005" for a linear measurement such as bore or stroke). So a car which cc's to a CR of 9.55, or possibly even as high as 9.6 could conceiveably be legal, based on the cumulative limitations in accuracy during the measurement process. These tolerances need to be clearly defined and documented on the official forms and/or procedures.
In my opinion, the benefit of ANY doubt goes to the competitor.