1. In PADI rescue course, I was taught that after discoving an unresponsive diver, signaling/trying to get their attention, and turning them over...the first thing done is to establish their buoyancy, then mine. Next was to call for help, then remove weights/mask/reg...10 seconds check, then begin rescue breaths
In my SDI DM review of the same thing, I was told that after turning the unconscious diver over, to forgo establishing more buoyancy for the victim or myself, to remove weights/mask reg...then 10 seconds check...and if not breathing to THEN signal or call for help, following by ther rescue breaths. I wonder what the reasoning is for the difference of WHEN the call for help is made?
2. On the same token...in my PADI rescue course, I was taught that after the first 2 initial rescue breaths...each following breath should come every 5 seconds. With SDI..it was every 10 seconds. IM not sure if that difference has any real advantage to the heath of the victim, or otherwise allows more time between breaths for a faster equipment removal and movement to the boat/shore...but as in line with number 1...i would love to hear others opinions about why that is done.
I am PADI 'born and bred', and won't try to answer for WHY SDI procedures may differ. Rather I can try to suggest some of the reasoning behind PADI procedures.
For the first question: the idea of calling for help early is that with an unresponsive diver - whether they are breathing or not - you are in all likelihood going to need help - possibly before getting them to shore, then to get them out of the water, and then EMS support to assess their condition, even if it is
only unresponsiveness. So, call for it (early, maybe even often, like voting

). You don't lose time by calling for it early.
For the second question, I have an impression but cannot state that it is accurate. I was an AHA CPR Instructor-Trainer for many years, in the mid-70s to mid-80s. During that period based on the (frankly, very limited) available data, the mindset was that we needed to support respiration as well as cardiac function. I have a sense the PADI technique - breathe every 5 seconds - grew out of those 'mature' procedures and there has really not been a sound basis for changing. Over the ensuing decades, with each revision of the guidelines, we have moved away from respiratory support toward much more vigorous cardiac support, ON LAND. Unfortunately, we cannot offer the same cardiac support in water (at least not yet).
One additional thought: boulderjohn makes a slightly cynical, but very valid point (and i share his cynicism). Resuscitation rates on land are at best 'mediocre' That is not a criticism, just a statement of the reality of cardiopulmonary arrest. But, we will still do everything we can in the faint hope that function can be restored, or that we can somehow keep the patient 'viable' until multi-function EMS support become available. In water the results are no longer 'mediocre', they are frankly very poor. I think an argument could be made that the one best thing we can do for the unresponsive, non-breathing diver, is get him/her out of the water ASAP, and forget everything after establishing that they are unresponsive.