And the proof doesn't have to be from a back-to-back comparison but from a single actual map of a real engine to show how you couldn't fit it in a 16x16 table. Using the arguments of what the OEMs use is also not very useful in my view since they have constraints that no one else has and a lot of what is in their ECU is there to pass some government test. I'm sure that if they were simply tuning for best power and efficiency, their ECUs and maps would be much simpler.
It does, if you don't have back to back tests there's pretty much no way you can claim its not necessary without glossing over some factors. As I said from the start, the difference may be minor, and most people may not want to map 32x32 or so on, but that doesn't mean they're not necessary, just that they dont fit the general usergroup of MS. If it was said that "we don't think anyone wants to tune more than 16x16 and that can handle most tuning eventualities to a reasonable degree" then I'd agree entirely and not have said anything, but to say it's not needed is a different matter. The reason the OEMs can use a 40+x40+ table is because they have a team of people with one engine for weeks on end trying to get the very best out of the engine and (to some extent) trying to meet regulations on emissions. My argument is simply that larger tables are useful, I already commented that it's probably not suitable for the MS usergroup on several grounds.
WRT the holley autotuning shifting many bins - of course, thats a simple tuning algorithm scaling the bins as it goes because it was designed to illustrate (listen to the commentary) that it can be done without a base map for the engine - it is demonstrating large-scale map autogen, not fine tuning of single bins.