Thanks Brandon.
Kyle, using rule 9.1.7.C. as a guide line.
If the CCC tested some number of suspected hardened shift forks and some number of suspected hardened (stress relieved) springs which came out of a transmission rebuild house and all forks and springs from the transmission rebuild house tested above some quantity while all the known OEM springs and forks tested below some quantity what conclusion do you believe the CCC would come to? Just as Mark said in the video when he was inspecting a transmission house transmission's roll pins which were safety wired, they wouldn't pass tech. Because one can't see/view hardness/stress relief, why does one believe hardness/stress relief can not be tested.
Johnny, using the term durability when referencing the forks and springs is just like referring that the STR only improved the engine power of minimal significance. When a syncro spring is more durable (per video words, last 4 times longer) it very likely will not cause a syncro ring failure because of harsh shifts as harsh shifting OEM syncro spring would cause syncro ring failure. Hence the more durable syncro springs provide performance advantage.
This illegal/legal rule sliding crap is exactly how/why limited prep Production class cars came about for the SCCA during the mid 1990's. The fact of life for production cars pre mid 1990's was entries were continuously becoming less and less because of COST to compete.