The statement you made that I quoted was worded in terms of certainty. Thus, I question whether you've seen enough data to know whether this particular grade will shear in this particular app.
AEHaas's cars are very high-horsepower and used for short trips in which he often does things like light up the rear tires and cruise around at 8k RPM in first gear just to hear the engine. It's hard to imagine how they would be a basis on which to make assertions about shear stability in a 2004 Wrangler. If you want to use data from his cars, the thing to do would be to find UOAs from other oils of the same grade and see if they sheared more or less. That might be somewhat informative.
Besides, where are you getting "10% viscosity loss" from? The spec sheet I'm looking at indicates a KV100 of 8.6 cSt, which would make the viscosity loss more like 7%. But either way, I can't imagine either number being something to be worried about; in fact, considering the application and your reason for arguing that RLI tends not to be shear-stable (i.e. use of VIIs), it might be pretty impressive. Or, it might simply fall within the range of manufacturing error.
Here are some everyday cars using RLI 0w-20:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1120860
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=83089&Number=1075398
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1025079
Even this is not much of a trend, and we still don't have any Jeeps, but these UOAs together suggest that viscosity seems to track quite neatly with fuel dilution, as it tends to do with all oils. No big surprise. The KV100 from UOAs with zero (or near-zero) fuel dilution is 8 or 8.1.
AEHaas's UOA bucks the trend... in the wrong direction. Despite fuel dilution, it shows a KV100 of 8 cSt, which corresponds with the zero-fuel-dilution numbers from those other UOAs.
The appropriate conclusion to come to here is "not enough data to make a call." Which is my point.
Now, if what you meant to say was, "But it
often shears, so it
might not be that much thicker than necessary," that's another story. It's technically true of almost all oils, so you would still have to demonstrate that it was more true of RLI than of others; however, I've seen you make the latter argument before and I find it plausible in theory (if not also backed by evidence), so I would not pick that nit.
