I have some minor comments (big shock, right)?
Disclaimer: I watched the first part where you discussed the basics in its entirety, and skipped quickly through the rest of it where you were P-mag and EIC specific, so excuse me if this was covered later.
I hope this post is accepted in the spirit of constructive feedback that is offered.
We are in general agreement on the need to achieve PCP at the optimum crank angle. However, I believe your audience would be better served if you went into more depth on the variables needed to marry up PCP and the 15 ATDC. Flame speed is not constant. The stated data that the normal flame speed of 16.5 m/s is fine to illustrate that there is a flame front that has to travel across the piston (time/distance relationship), but is misleading in that there is a subtle implication that the data plate timing values on the Lycoming will give you PCP@ 15 ATDC. The fact is, an engine needs what an engine needs and it has been my experience that even the data plate values for timing is too advanced/sub optimal for full rich, 100% power. Flight test data I’ve collected indicates that like a fixed pitch prop, factory magneto timing is a compromise at both ends – it works, but it’s still sub optimal at the edges of the envelope. I am completely on board with your message that “more advance does not always equal better”, but until you get some comprehensive flight test data, you might want to hold off on specific recommendation. I have done a lot of in situ flight test on this exact subject and still just scratched the surface. I do know enough to disagree with your base timing recommendations though.
Also, a minor nit – the Angle Valve head is an important part of the performance improvement (over the PV), but so too is the far superior induction system. The large plenum and tuned induction tubes are a radical advance over the standard updraft sump. And the ability to achieve intake resonance is a big influence in charge density. It is the combustion chamber shape and induction tuning that conspire to move the required timing back compared to the PV.
On the subject of angle valve timing, I am anticipating an ignition system change on the RV-8 which has an angle valve on the nose. This will be its 3rd ignition system, and I intend to do an inflight sweep of the timing to emulate the current and previous ignition systems, thereby providing a "near real time” comparison on the distinct timing schemes between them. Among the testing will be sustained 100% power with a test to see just how far the timing can be retarded before the power drops off. Recall I did this experiment on the (parallel valve) Rocket and found a 10 degree sweep to have zero change on the maximum speed, and this included a drop well below the data plate advance, but did not go all the way to the performance dip.
I’ll publish the results here, and I expect that much of your presentation material will be validated, but I think some will be in conflict. In any case, hard data is rare on this subject so we’ll pin it to the wall for future use.