Please try to avoid personal comments. The issue is not about whether you agree with me or not. It is about the definition of stand development. You can have any opinion you like, but the definition of stand development is determined by consulting historical and contemporary usage of the term.
In an earlier thread you wrote, “I would remind you both that stand development is defined as no agitation (as correctly stated by the OP), not infrequent agitation.”
That is simply not true. Stand development is generally defined exactly as Stephen G. Anchell and Bill Troop defined it in The Film Developing Cookbook.
“Stand development is a technique which relies upon highly dilute developers and extremely long development times. This means film development times of thirty minutes to several hours with no agitation after the initial minute.”
A similar definition is also used by Michael Axel in the new book on stand development I referenced in an earlier message.
“Stand definition is a variation of standard film processing, whereby the film is given the initial agitation, then left to stand with no farther agitation, for an extended period of time. “
With regards to the merits of stand development I have made the case many times that the most critical period of development is the initial agitation at the beginning of development. Many of the failures of stand development can be traced to inadequate agitation during this critical period.