Quote - re: Best we can do

That would imply that we're out of ideas... are you? :)   I'm not, so no.

re: dot-checking Normals

No - I assumed that the script was (of course it's an 'option' on the script, but I always enable that).

Not out of ideas.  :lol:  Good.  Okay.

The script may or may not be checking normals, depending on user settings.  I was, but there are still problems in some of these areas.  I'm not sure the normals would have to vary by 90 degrees or more to interfere with the average.  That's the threshold point at which they're screened using the normals test for the overall function.  It depends, too, on how closely the surfaces are aligned at the time of comparison.  An average which is askew because of over-sampling in a creased concave (looking at the above image, maybe convex creased areas, too) area would be increasingly off-course, the further it had to travel.  Sort of like that sentence.  Hmm.

I really will stop harping on this.  You know these things better than I do, and you know quite well what you're doing.  :lol:  The averaging of normals could possibly benefit from its own dot product screening.  Maybe.  I mean, it's simpler than building the destination points for the target vertices and it might help clean up the results in certain areas.  I'm on about this because this is now really the only problem I'm seeing in the results.  It seems like, after more than three years, we might be there.  But not quite.  Almost.  So I'm sort of wound up.  Sorry.  :lol:

===========================sigline======================================================

Cage can be an opinionated jerk who posts without thinking.  He apologizes for this.  He's honestly not trying to be a turkeyhead.

Cage had some freebies, compatible with Poser 11 and below.  His Python scripts were saved at archive.org, along with the rest of the Morphography site, where they were hosted.