Look, I'm not trying to start a flame war, or offend anyone. I'm also not trying to block anybody's search for anything, and most certainly not 'magic'. And I am not saying that 'silver rich' is not a term. It obviously is, and became so the first time some clever dude uttered it.
All I am saying is that it is imprecise, and means just about anything you want it to mean,which was nicely illustrated with the example stated of 'fast cars' . If you don't want to use any testing methods or densitometers, fine. I don't care. But this impassioned defense of the term borders on the ridiculous. If you want it to mean whatever you choose it to mean, then that's okay by me. All I know is that there is a heck of lot more to how film performs under actual conditions than whether somebody calls it 'silver rich'. I have tested and USED these films, and I can show you the results, and you're welcome do do anything you want with them. But this whole discussion seems to split more along the lines of a whether you will buy into a 'belief system' versus any kind of rational proof.
Bottom line: if it works for you, don't change a thing. I'm not proselytizing that my way is the only way. Everybody will evolve their own way of working. And FWIW, I don't do anything fancy or high tech in the field, and I know the knowledge I get from understanding how film responds to light allows me to make a correct exposure without a lot of conscious thought. I concentrate 98% on the image, knowing that a little up-front work allows me to bring home the 'magic' I find, consistently.