Honest question here, without also publishing exact tire pressure+casing or accounting for precise sag measurements to the millimeter (obviously all geometry numbers are un-sagged, which makes them less relevant), does this sort of precision really matter? I've never felt that, for example, my over-inflated rear tire has made my bike's head angle and seat angle steeper, or the reach is now shorter, even though those technically are true.
Does anyone ever notice things like a half degree in a highly variable dynamic environment?
Yep. Mobility, or limitations of, can make things like that make a bit difference in fit, and pain while riding. For other people, it may not be fit but performance reasons.
My body can be an absolute wreck if I don’t account for it.
But, my issues here are what feels like a lack of transparency. Changing geo numbers without telling people comes across, well, like we bought bikes based on what was published previously than what is published now.
Angles like HA and SA greatly affect fit, as does ETT (despite no one acts like it exists). BB height is another big one, especially for the current generation of MTBs (low, long, and slack).
Look, i like GG, and i want to see them succeed. My husband has two of them. What I don’t like is what could be considered information that determines whether or not someone buys a bike to be accurate and trusted and not change by surprise: like geometry and bike weights.