I'm trying to get a feel for how the actual testing. The gist of what I'm saying is based on my experience, and most others (I'm in AZ with grainy Bermuda greens .. but grew up on Poa) is that grain will have more affect as putts start to slow down.
Your experience isn't reality. Golfers think they see balls on poa or bent greens "break more" as the putt slows down. And it does… but it's more a matter of acceleration and time. The grain doesn't really increase this much. (Putts accelerate downhill, plus the putt covers the last 3' in more time than it covers the first 3').
The difference is how much that varies on "grainy" greens versus non-grainy greens. And that difference is not much at all.
I get Aimpoint wants robotic putting
No. You've misunderstood that part.
For someone who doesn't think that way, it's important to know where the grain affect is happening in the putt.
It affects it — albeit very, very little — the whole putt.
Clearly it's more as the the ball is losing momentum than it is when it's struck
That's true of "break" too.
Maybe we won't get on the same page, and that's cool.
It's not about getting on the same page. It's about you valuing what you think you see over what are basically facts.
Here's the deal, in a nutshell.
Mark would measure a green every cm with lasers that were accurate to a millimeter, and his mathematical model could predict the path of a putt hit everywhere at any speed to any distance. The model just assumed a uniform surface (i.e. no grain), and when he tested his model against the grainiest greens… he found that it was off only about 1/2" on a 20' putt across the grainiest greens (I think a 2.5% slope IIRC).
Every situation is going to be different, it just strikes me that everything I've known and some of the best putters I've ever seen have known is basically out the window according to Aimpoint.
That's the thing with advancements, science, etc. And kinda the point of this topic: a lot of what people think is true, it turns out, is not.