OK, at this point I'm not actually clear on what we are debating!
I don't know about you, but I'm not a hyperbaric doc or other decompression science professional. Just an interested amateur. I do agree that a discussion of the nuances of decompression science is beyond the scope of this thread. I guess the only reason that we are still discussing it is that we at some point gave different opinions to the OP, right?
I would summarize my position here like this:
(1) We don't know all of the variables that contribute to the clinical entity know as DCS.
(2) Bubbles are neither proven to be the direct cause of symptoms / injury in DCS or a totally reliable biomarker for decompression stress.
(3) However, greater degrees of decompression stress (whether or not this correlates precisely with bubble formation) are associated with a greater risk of symptoms and injury. And when I say decompression stress, I'm not talking about any secondary measurement, bubbles or biomarkers, I'm just talking about physics - the profile and the gas composition. While there is a lot of controversy in this field, I don't think that is controversial.
So as far as I can reconstruct (from your post #13), I said that his diver should do as much deco before surfacing as was operationally possible (including the possibility of extra gas). You said that it would be better to get out of the water earlier, watch for symptoms and breath 100% O2 on the boat, because it wasn't that important to stay further from the M-value line, just do pure Buhlmann and get out.
Isn't that what you were saying? I still think that the diver should do the deco on the line in the water, nuances of decompression science, biomarkers, and the limits of the bubble hypothesis notwithstanding.