Sheesh... I hope for everyone's sake that @graeme_f_k doesn't just throw up his arms and quit contributing.
I'm sorry I questioned a manufacturers claims and matched it with data I could find.
I'm also sorry that I do not recognize claims as factual data.
Of course I'm not sorry at all. I certainly don't want to scare away Graeme, but the fanboyish "Best post ever! Real data is great" when there's actually zero data is much more detrimental than critical thinking.
And I assume Graeme is a big guy and realizes that so far he only has put down claims without any supporting data. If that's all he can do, no problem (proprietary data and it's likely unverifiable by us anyway), but he should say so. "Guys, I can't show you the numbers, but believe us. The experience shows that we know our stuff". No outlandish claims needed.
Sorry to bring this up again, but I can't restrain myself...
Yes all else being equal, spoke lacing patterns affect lateral stiffness very, very little. But...
Triplet lacing, when used with a hub specifically designed for it, makes for a laterally stiffer wheel. Yes, there are fewer NDS spokes for lateral stiffness, but that is more than made up for by moving the NDS flange farther to the left. This is no longer "all else being equal".
Campy's claim of "17% greater reactivity" may be some proprietary matrix, but I will contend that it's largely torsional stiffness. It's making no claims of greater efficiency. It is generally a preferred characteristic, though. Zipp's 188 rear hubs, with their very low torsional stiffness lacing pattern, are notorious for this, and while they're not slower, sprinters have complained about the feel.
Note about your data on lateral stiffness: your data link is for VERTICAL stiffness. His models might as well have one center flange with all the spokes on it. Which is fine, for what he was testing. It just has no bearing on this discussion.