It was the implication that the randomization had some benefit that was drivel, scientifically speaking. All that was necessary was that there was an appropriate average density to give the required degree of overall gain. A regular grid of evenly spaced white spots with the same average density would have given exactly the same degree of metering accuracy over the same range of scenes.

Introducing the concept of randomization, was, from a technical point of view, the light-metering equivalent of those ads for cosmetic products that are packed full of scientific-sounding language, which serves only to dupe the non-scientifically minded into thinking that there's something special there that will actually reverse the aging of skin, or whatever. It's a classic marketing/advertizing trick - present the consumer with technical stuff that will impress them even if it means nothing. And in the mid 1970s, telling Joe Punter that something was a computer-generated random pattern simulating the reflectance of film was enough to impress. "We calculated the dot size and spacing in 20 seconds with a slide-rule" wouldn't have sounded nearly as good, but that's all that was really needed. Back of an envelope would have been enough, when you get right down to it.

As for ineffective anti-dust systems, well, you don't expect me to defend the gasfire people, Shirley? :-)