The "blip" we see in UOAs can not be used to demonstrate this supposed phenomenon either. Carryover is an uncontrolled variable.
Let's take an engine with a 5 qt. sump with 10% carryover that produces a constant 10ppm Fe per 1000 miles, and a 10K OCI as an example. Draw a sample at 1 mile and at every 1K thereafter. This is what the data would look like:
1 mile 11 ppm = 11ppm/mile
1K miles 21 ppm = 0.0210 ppm/mile
2K miles 31 ppm = 0.0155 ppm/mile
3K miles 41ppm = 0.0137 ppm/mile
4K miles 51 ppm = 0.0128 ppm/mile
5K miles 61 ppm = 0.0122 ppm/mile
6K miles 71 ppm = 0.0118 ppm/mile
7K miles 81 ppm = 0.0116 ppm/mile
8K miles 91 ppm = 0.0114 ppm/mile
9K miles 101 ppm = 0.0112 ppm/mile
10K miles 111 ppm = 0.0111 ppm/mile
There you go, the blip seen in UOAs explained by simple math, no extra wear required.
Another thing to take into consideration when viewing the SAE paper is that as a bench test, the fresh oil never sees combustion products. In your car the oil is diluted typically 10-15% with used oil and sees fresh combustion products as soon as you turn the key.
I really wish the authors of the SAE paper had run aged motor oil on a new cam/lifter as a control. All I will say about that paper in general is that if I had submitted that paper to my boss with the rather incomplete methodology section, integrity of the aged oil in question, and figures that did not match the text, my behind wouldn't likely ever grow back.
That said, the paper does provide useful data on the differences in anti wear between new and aged oil, and that 15K oil is still capable of maintaining an effective anti wear layer. The oils themselves were not capable of 15K. All were showing signs of distress (TBN/TAN) at 10K and by 15K one of these 5W20s was a XW-50 and the other two XW-40s, and TAN was 2-3X TBN. Sludge City!
Ed