Nicely done, but for me here on the other side of the atlantic ocean reality is behaving quite different to the theories you use to make the reader believe that the co-axial escapement was a step back: My Rolexes are far less accurate than my Panerai or my Omega. Both run lower speeds. And with longer power reserve.

When taking Walt Arnsteins article as a base for argumentation you only quoted the last sentence, that a higher beating movement has a leg over his slower cousins. But please quote the sentences before that, too: "Finally, we should keep in mind that response to mechanical disturbances is not the only source of error in a watch. There can be poor adjustment for isochronism, sensitivity to temperature, friction in the gear train, etc. How else to explain the fact that Rolexes, Omegas, and other fine watches of the 1930s and 1940s routinely passed COSC tests with flying colors despite their low (5 bps) beat rate? Or the fact that a sizable number of modern watches (notably models by PP, IWC, Minerva, etc.) still continue to exhibit outstanding performance with a beat rate of 5 bps? The answer lies in precision and individual attention to detail.
No, beat rate is not the only factor affecting potential for outstanding performance"

The reason for Omega to run the co-axial escapement at lower speeds was that George Daniels designed it for. Higher speeds cause teeth impact problems with the co-axial escapement and actually Omega did not go back from 28,800 bph to 25,200 bph - they went up from 18,000 bph, the speed the co-axial escapement was designed for.

You also forgot to mention that the Omega cal. 2500 uses the same free sprung balance system as the Rolex which you pointed out to be the better solution.

The fact that Omegas come with a COSC certificate is nice - but what is Rolex intent when delivering nearly every watch with a COSC certificate? IMO the same: Giving the buyer the feeling of super accuracy where it is just average. And in side by side comparisson the Rolex 3135 is far more average at all points than the co-axial Omegas.