@KenGordon
to explain my part of what you quoted
Suunto uses a Haldanean model with 9 compartments which is what Buhlmann evolved from, then has a bunch of modifications to it as you alluded to in order to mimic a true RGBM algorithm. This is wonky because it doesn't tell you how or why it does what it does and you are expected to go on a "trust me" dive with this computer.
Mares uses the same sort of haldanean modified to rgbm.
They do this because they don't have the processing power to actually run full RGBM which is very intense from a computing perspective.
RGBM goes against the state of the art with current decompression research as a foundation for decompression profiles. Whether or not these psuedo RGBM algorithms produce profiles that mimic appropriate ascent curves is one thing, but the foundation of them goes against current research.
If you want to go on a trust-me dive with your computer, especially when the manual straight up says that it will adjust m-values arbitrarily, not tell you what will cause it to adjust them, and then goes on to tell you that you don't need to worry about it, then fine, put your full trust in that computer. I don't want the computer messing with my deco profiles without telling me why.
I used an easy example of a relatively simple tech dive. Let's go to 250ft for 30 mins on 12/70. Use 35/25, 50%, and 100% as deco gases. 50-80 buhlmann, -2 Suunto Tech RGBM with deep stops on. GUE Deco planner and Suunto DM5 set to immediate descent. Buhlmann on left, Suunto on right. Buhlmann has 112 mins of deco, Suunto has 99. Suunto has 3 more minutes of deco before the 20ft O2 stop, and 13 less minutes of total deco. So there is proof of more deep stops and less total deco time on a dive where it matters. Closest approximation for this dive of the Suunto deco profile on Buhlmann is 50/100
180-0-1
140-2-2
130-2-0
120-2-2
110-2-1
100-2-2
90-3-3
80-4-4
70-4-3
60-5-4
50-6-7
40-9-14
30-15-16
20-19-16
10-37-24
