Great report! Very low wear. Low contamination.
Soooooooooo .... Elkins45, what did you learn from the UOA? I mean, what did you discover that will lead to actionable choice?
The reason for doing it was to learn two things:
1. Is it actually a good quality oil suitable for long-term use (the answer seems to be yes)
2. Does it hold up to a 5K change interval? (it seems like it could go to 6K comfortably)
Frankly, any lube in the right vis that has the API cert mark is going to be "suitable for long-term use". I have yet to see a UOA that indicates an API lube being inferior to such conditions. Could that lube in your lube go 6k miles? Yes. But that's a pittance. It appears that it could easily go 15k miles, and probably more. Your Fe wear rate is around 1ppm/1k miles; that's almost absurdly low! The other wear metals are non-issues as well. There's no contamination to speak of. Understandably, if you're under warranty, you're not likely to push this out far. OK, then. But there's no reason to be buying syns if you're just going to follow the OEM schedule.
Here's the bottom line; what the UOA is confirming ...
Either ditch the syn and follow the OEM interval with the least expensive conventional lube that is API licensed, and quit doing UOAs. (There is plenty of evidence to show that dino lubes can do just as well under such conditions).
Or extend the OCIs out to a reasonable condemnation point where the wear rates rise above "normal" wear trends, thereby getting value out of the syn and the UOAs.
Essentially you're doubling down on waste, because you're not only wasting perfectly good lube, but also wasting information you paid for.