Adjustability means the system is going to have to be more complicated to have the same stability as a static one. I think that the template is at least the easier route to go for now.
I like that a lot. I have had to take my sled on and off the chains a lot as I’ve been getting things dialed in, so having that link would help speed up the process significantly. I’ve had to spend quite a bit of time looking for the master link parts when I either dropped them or they flew off when I released them. 
Entirely my own fault for not being careful enough.
I think I inadvertently did when I mentioned I was already planning on testing the two linkage systems together. I’m fine with that, but it will take time for me to do it right. The other thing that that my machine is smaller than the stock version, so results will be more extreme at the far sides of the bed. It may be a good idea to have a couple of people try this, especially with all the frame variants that are being made. I would be curious to see how much that also plays a role in the accuracy we see across the bed.
What do we want to see in the tests? Would something like I covered in this thread be good? I checked to see how well accuracy in a small shape in regular intervals across the bed. If I’m missing something crucial, though, we can work out a good test for it. I know I would like to have some way to measure compounding errors (aka slop) for each version. Should I also test the stock kinematics so that we have a control?
@Bar, I should probably go ahead an order one of your ring setups as well 
Admittedly, part of my hesitation about adding this as part of the stock package is that I am still working out the issues with my own setup. My observations so far could be based in my own poor hardware choices. Or I haven’t dialed in the calibration as much as I think I have. I would absolutely LOVE to be wrong here, because then I would have more time for making cool stuff