My AM was a 2006, I sold it about a dozen rides after purchase to get a Z1 Light. I have no doubt the pedaling efficiency is higher with the RC2. Want more pedaling? Dial up compression. It still flows more oil under bigger hits and allows closer to full travel. If I set up the AM for full travel, it was bobbing everywhere. Sure, I can flick the compression adjuster over, but I'd rather ride than constantly flicking adjustments back and forth, which is what the AM needed to handle diverse trail conditions. And again, I won't forget the brake dive. It even has a QR front that is a clear indicator of its mission to be a product to entice XC guys into going bigger. This is supported by the lockout feature, which is not necessary, but only takes up one position on the dial.
The only thing the TST offers above the fixed orifice forks is compression damping, nothing more. On paper, the whole fork seems like a winner with tons of features, but overall, the performance here is dictated and limited by the route the oil flows through the damper's piston. The maintenance is more finicky and essential. The damper is not as durable and it remains to be seen if several years down the road any will be in service like the hscv, rc2, and ssv/f dampers.
Your statement about the RC2 is somewhat suspect, because anyone who has ridden one knows it's not only a DH oriented damper. It handles trailbiking very well, perhaps even better than the TST and I was one to have a near side by side comparison (look at my photo gallery for evidence). It's set and forget, no matter where the user selects the compression.