First, Rick20's comment had to do with maintenance doses. In Tempest's cited experiment, a maintenance dose isn't even one of the treatments. The treatments are "before", "during", and "after".
Second, it is not clear from the citation as to wether the wear metals were "corrected" for mileage. Each treatment was in the engine for a different number of miles. For example the oil with 1000 miles of use (AutoRX treatment) had almost exactly half the level of copper as compared to the oil with 2000 miles of use (before use treatement). Was this difference due to the AutoRX or the fact that it has been in use for half the number of miles.
Third, the repeatability of each measurement is not noted. Phosphorous varied between treaments by almost 2-fold (low of 741 ppm, high of 1240 ppm). This range is noted as normal. On the other hand, lead(Pb) varied by only 9 ppm and was used to exemplify a protective effect of AutoRX. I think that the Pb numbers are actually the most impressive data points in the study. However, without knowing the variation of the lead assay and without seeing the observation repeat, the data do not prove point, they only support it.
I am not trying to trash the UOAs or the analysis. I think that the conclusions could be consistant with the data. I also know that I am not an expert in oil analysis. However, I still do not think that the results "prove" the position. I collect, analyse, and publish data for a living. I do not know of a way to prove anything with an "n" of one. Each treatement group is a single observation.
Lastly, Rick20's statement was a blanket statement - no qualifications. Even if we all accept the premise that there are cases where AutoRX could reduce wear, those cases were not noted. Will it reduce wear in Castrol 0W30? Will it reduce wear in a Honda? What about my lawn mower? I know that I don't know the circumstances under which AutoRX will reduce wear. Can someone list them?