Speaking for myself only, I am NOT anti-stand. I don't really care what you or anyone else do for personal projects.
My suggestion is based on the fact that for this test, your result is showing possible development issues, and stand development can cause these issues. Therefore, it makes sense to me, for a testing purpose, to do what the manufacturer says and eliminate one variable. Once you know that's not the cause, you can go back to whatever you prefer to do.
I did a lot of promo mailings and follow-ups - I think I got 3 long term clients from that in a decade. You really needed a rep to get any traction. I've never gotten a single lead from my web site either - it's all referrals.
I really don't push shooting nearly as much these days - digital has thrown so many people into the market now. What used to take a year of testing and learning, to get you to where knowing what the difference between a polaroid and final film would be, what film, what filters, what color temp, push or not... just to be able to sleep while the lab was doing snip tests - now it's just "look at the LCD" and if you're advanced, the histogram. That's a simplification, but it's hyper competitive to get a start now. I do more video and lots of design and writing. Video's a little tougher to just jump into!
I still think for most clients it comes down to common sense - what's the message, what does the consumer need to see/hear, and the bottom line is really "how does this affect profitability"? When clients see you're thinking this way and when they describe a job and you re-strategize the whole thing in the first meeting, they can quickly feel you're part of the team. It's like you work there, and it's great for long-term relationships. We're all consumers at some level, I try to think like one - and I have zero marketing education other than "life in America"!
If i was the lens, then redoing the test without stand development should reveal that problem clearly.
If you shoot with another camera and use the same stand method, then if you have the problem it is bromide (or chemical) drag. And yes, it can appear quite sharp, especially with larger formats.
I am not against stand ether, but it is, as I said, an art. You don't just walk into it and do it the first time. You have to fine tune with different methods until you get things just right.
I'd say the first frame I posted, from the stand film, was bromide streaking - and this test was shot with a different lens (90).
My guess is the 2nd two, which were developed "normally" (11 and 15 minutes) were the shutter (a 180 which I hadn't used in a decade and is most decidedly messed up; just ordered another one from KEH). That lens was such a dependable favorite for so long, it took a while for me to consider that.
I've done several rolls of 35 with the same "semi" stand technique and no trouble though; I was impressed with how much separation it gave between the shadow tones; highlights were pretty flat and overall I felt it would have taken a pretty hard filter to print. I wasn't thrilled enough with it to keep playing with the process - but it was a really useful part of trying to build some "second nature" thinking about development and highlights.