PE: Thank you for detailed answer to my inquiry. Reading that and your reply to Ian, you appear to have worked in very great detail depth, or rather, you particular activities with Kodak that made you pay attention to very fine details. Realizing that you are likely to be under constraints at to what you can or cannot say your input is all the more appreciated. Having spend a good number of years in IT, I also have comparable constraints as would anyone working in professional fields, so I understand the issue.
In your reply to me you mention: "If iodide ion is absent from the developer..." Now the thing is, in the formula I was and still am referencing, there is no iodide in the developer. So I suppose your reply was more in general terms rather than in direct connection to my original post. Nonetheless helpful information, though a more specific answer would be appreciated. I would assume then as you state that, potassium iodide would be a crucial component in developer. Please correct me if I am wrong, or you are thinking of a different iodine salt because you simply abreviate to iodine.
As you might well understand, simply hearing something is wrong, for a non-expert or "informed-beginner" is of little constructive value. I am always eager to go forward and correct, within reason, what someone terms as wrong or inappropriate. I am also thinking of future readers over the years who maybe looking at this thread eager to find contructive information.
With the understanding that you are contrained in what you can say and that it is my intention to find out more details about self mixing C-41 chemistry, I would very much appreciate more specific information. Specific chemistries and amounts you would feel are needed to compose process component. I am sure, with your background you can well abstract from specific rights constraints.
Realizing your in depth work experience, I do understand your focus on extremely high precision. When you state "developer and film are adjusted against each other", I am sure the major players all do such things. Yet this perfection breaks down when you process brand X with brand Y chemistry. A common real life situation I am sure. The result may still be good or even great. I would tend to think the judgement whether a result is acceptable or not is a very flexible concept and depends on context. Architectural photography for a mural is not the same as an image landing on a webpage at 400x300pixel.
If you will excuse my rambling, I would certainly agree with you that there are places for high technical accuracy. For me technical perfection and aestetics, while not independent, can be quite independent. Bluntly, a technically perfect image can be just plain boring or awful. And whatever variants of that sentence can be formed. And for those, like me, who do want to improve their results, finding contructive input on how to so on a technical level is most welcome!