Makes sense why you shouldn’t share mounting points and such. No argument there.
But things like a potential roll center, camber gain, scrub radius, wheel rate, etc. are all easy to calculate and validate (or invalidate) a design and make it easier to compare to other designs. Like comparing CD on different makes of cars, doesn’t expose the design but it gives hard numbers to compare when one design says “better aerodynamics“.
Certainly things like ride height, alignment and wheel/tire sizes can have a huge impact on those numbers making an apples to apples comparison hard. But honestly, if I was marketing a kit as having better geometry, first thing I would do is drag in a stock car, standarize those values and take some measurements. Then I would set up my kit the same way and if they were improved I would publish them every place I could. But I don’t see anyone doing that which makes me wonder…
I understand that you aren’t making that claim, not pointing this at you. But there are other companies that do make that claim, without anything to back it up. And based on the OP’s initial set up, I would bet at the very least the roll center is not better on those other kits.
It’s not like the stock suspension has to be all that modified either. Toss on an adjustable UCA and leave the rest alone. Bolt up a 17” or 18” tire similar to what the COC would run and match the ride height. Then give it an alignment of something like -0.5 camber and +6 caster and take measurements of the pivot points. Then cycle the suspension and measure the camber gain. With that someone would have a baseline and could set up a COC with the same values and take the same measurement and actually see if their suspension had better geometry.
I understand why they don’t though. Most people in the community believe a COC is better, so why spend time and money to prove it when it might not be true and it’s already generally accepted.
