It was you in your previous post that mentioned 30% of failure rate not me, I would expect more than a factor of ~3 saftey for head bolts.
"Just of the top of my head i would bet that a pound to a pinch of *hit that the max torgue in book would only be ?? ....what??? .... 30% of the failure point."
If you wish to convince me that the maths in that link i provided are wrong i will require more evidence than you saying it is. I will want more than personal anecdotes and some ad homenim attacks though.
I'm not a "PHD mechanical engineer" Altough i do find it interesting that you imagine that a PHD mechanical engineers opinion would somehow be worth less than yours? are you a proffesor in mechanical engineering?
I'm a actually a development chemist at a company that makes lubricants including ...you guessed it anti siezes, and i can tell you that it is 100% a fact that clamping load increases significantly when anti seize is added to clean
Fasteners for the same amount of
torque because i've done the work myself. a little more than a "30 second google search".
BSA specified
torque settings to ensure clamping load on the head would be consistent and at the level they decided would be correct, if you add lubricant to those fastners without calculating the reuction in
torque required to maintain the same level of clampin load you are ignoring what the BSA engineers specified as the correct clamping load. At that point why follow the
torque settings at all just eyeball everything.
As i said in my first post the Manuel should be followed as the engineers who designed these engines (more or less) knew what they were doing better than most of us throwing spanners at them 60 years later.
Scatter is a different issue, one which the designer would take into account and if they specified lubricated fastners they would spec the
torque setting to the level that applied the appropriate clamping force IE reduced over a dry fastner.
or 
