While understanding the principle of surface roughness...go feel the "beard" on an Ogre Particle cover versus, say, a Link, it is interesting chemistry to "see" the variations in surface highs and lows. I would have hesitation, scientifically, thinking that the surface low points would have as much effect as the high points (though they may aid in oil absorption) when ball reaction is determined.
The high points seem to be similar to "particles", grippier parts of the coverstock. Though not likely "particular" in nature, their effect would be similar as it would cause some equivalent form of lane abrasion. So that I am completely clear, the USBC is attempting to regulate the variations in surface height/pitting? Only certain micro level variations would be permitted?
If this is indeed the case what is to prevent manufacturers from minimizing the variability in surface roughness, i.e. peaks and valleys, and return to using true particular matter to create the same, or nearly the same effect?
