Literally nothing as I think the success factor is more than adequate. And it's not an act: I still don't see any concrete proof as to why some kind of multiplier is needed in addition to or in place of the success factor. I think even something like the Iowa system is making assumptions that, while may be at least logical in terms of the disadvantages posed by low socio-economic situations, don't need to be made when you have the ability to adjust based on on the field results. As to why Indiana went to the success factor: it really doesn't matter what I think about the why - it is there now and at the end of the day it seems to work extremely well.
Ultimately, I don't think either of us is going to change our minds, here, so I agree it likely is time to call it a day amicably. I made my 4 page prediction because I someone would cross over a line with the moderators, but all in all, I think the issue is just at an impasse, and that's okay.