You know Kirk, when the discussion on the SBs happened, lots of views came out.
First, the historical view of the CRB, (the ruling body, as opposed to the ITAC which is the advisory body.... as you know, but perhaps others don't) was that SBs were fine. I think most of us on the con call from the ITAC were on that side of the fence.
Now, I know that at least 5 of us on the ITAC felt that any modification of the the arms or mounts was flat not legal. And I commented that most of the guys I knwe were under the same operating procedure.
What about glue I was asked, and I said, not a modification. Nope...wrong there, I was told certain glues bond molecularly. And that modifies the part. (Or something to that effect). There was discussion on that and the definition of "modify", too.
Ok....I started thinking about tack welds and I asked, "then what about somebody welding a plate on one side as a "retainer" that also happens to reinforce an A arm"? Not legal, clearly any tech inspector would know thats more than a tack weld was the reply. A definition of a "tack weld" was suggested, but defining it in such a way as to fit all the possible applications is pretty tricky. And lets not forget, certain "Cassettes" could be made to strenghten the part they attach too as well, but agin, they will run afoul of the prohibited function clause.
Back to the past for a second.
13 years ago, I had these tricky little Delrin things that replicated SBs on my RX-7. They certainly fit the rule as written, but they sure weren't easy to make, and in the event of damage, to repair or replace either. But according to my investigation at the time (a call to a friend on the CR
they were legal, and they were as effective as SBs.
7 years later, my new car had SBs, held in place via some lathe turned spacers and bits, and sure enough, I lost one at the Glen quite a while ago. Dave Gran and I walked the track and found a couple parts of the whole assembly, but the tricky part was gone. So I tried to replace it. Nope....no longer made that way. Solution? Buy TWO new ones...complete setups, that is..actually 4 (two ends ea.) at a cost of hundreds, or find a machine shop and have the bit custom made. (I know, you pick your horse....)
Point of both of those items is that the actions of a SB were in place and legal, from the begining of the rule's writing..
Back to the present.....Even with that in mind, I tried to poke holes in the tack weld arguement, but the prevailing thought was that SBs were fine, and making competitors waste tons of money fabricating parts to replicate what a simple tack weld does was not in the best interests of the category.
I certainly see the point about a tack weld growing to a series of welds then to a seam, then to a reinforced gusset, and it
is a reasonable concern.
But, the clause of performing an illegal function is there to stop that. Now, I hear the arguement that another load has been placed on the competitors back to police, and tech can't be trusted to make a good call, and so on, but I also hear the arguement that thousands of dollars won't be spent making widgets and cassettes and spacer devices to hold the SBs in place.
A few examples come to mind right away. A great ITA car that isn't built as often as you might think it should be is the 240SX. The rep on that car is that it is a tough, and expensive build, and it's kind of an all or nothing deal. If you don't do the rear suspension right, you have big problems. I wonder if the over a thou price on the rear arm mods is one of the factors that scares people off? Big savings on that car. Of course the rule isn't written for one car...it's just an example that popped into my head....it should benefit many others....faster builds, less expense, less time under the car, but no actual performance gain compared to the earlier rule.
I see the danger, but I also see the benefits. A tough call, but I think there is a good case for it.
could cram themselves into festivas or whatever. At the time SS had no rules about steering wheels. Now jump forward ten years and suppose SS adds a rule about allowing alternate steering wheels but doesn't mention QR. By your interpretation the intent of the rule has just changed and thos fat old guys can no longer get in their cars. Now apply this to every rule across every category and we have anarachy. We already have enough to argue about with IT rules, do we need to drag SS, Touring, Prod, GT, AS, SM, FC, FF, FV, F500, FA, CSR, DSR, S2000, FSCCA, CF into this. And you think Greg Amy is tired of rules debates now? 
on that legal deal. 
Please give me a break. Oh I'm sorry I was reading the party line.