I agree that ball surface or lane surface creates the most ball reaction. The USBC's BMS demonstrates that if you're willing to accept their findings based on the limitations they applied to their study.
Assuming USBC has got it right, would it not also make sense that drilling a ball to get as much of the ball in contact with the lane on each revolution will maximize it's potential reaction? This is a classic min/max problem. The bowler must find that place where they get maximum friction but scrub off minimum revolutions in the process. I don't remember reading where USBC attempted to find that balance.
Can the same ball drilled 2 different ways have 2 different reactions, despite ball surface and lane surface? If a difference does occur, What caused it?
Even after watching Mo Pinel's video for the 'FIX' I discount ball numbers as major factors in the reaction of balls I buy. On the other hand, I definitely buy into the idea that we can change the length of each phase by drilling a ball to control where transitions start based on the oil pattern.
According to Pinel, the 'FIX' can shorten the hook phase by simply going Pin up or Pin down. Drilling it symmetric or asymmetric. They seem to have some numbers that prove their theory. Why would they stake their theory and company reputation on B.S.?