The nose on the 6 is very soft compared to the 100. you had patience and found the "proper presentation of fuel" air should always be ahead of the fuel. The gov nose height and afc along with a good plate with a little patience will always prevail over a plateless tune.
It would be hard to get air ahead of the fuel, since the turbocharger is driven by heat, which is produced by combustion. And no, a plate will not always make more hp than without.
The reason these arguements are still around is because of the different applicatons and the differences between setup. Hp is a product of power vs time, some people care about sustaining hp rather than whipping rollers for a few seconds, one day this may be understood.
The real issue about the emission style plunger is lift to port closure, and how it affects injection rate. With increased rack travel comes an increase in injected quantity, but if this additional quantity is spread over a much larger window of time, it greatly diminishes the injection rate. To compare, it would be the equivelant to increasing duration on a Common Rail injection system beyond the point of making power gains. Fuel injected late in the combustion cycle often makes heat and smoke without power, that is what is really being discussed here.
In certain cases this type of long or heavy injection rate would be desired, as in the case of using N20. Is the #6 plate the "magical" cure, I don't think so, can it work in many applications, yes. As stated previously, the AFC controls much more area of the fuel curve than the fuel plate profile, but over extending the rack can show a decrease in hp in many instances.