Wow, a lot has happened in the thread in just overnight.
I can clarify a few things based on what I know.
I would tend to take the same approach as Mivanitski did as well. Any well-made/designed grinder will eventually hit the point of diminishing return, and perform similarly in the end. From my experience in using the Stance, it does seems both the Monolith and Stance have reached that point. The workflow is slightly different, and some of the grinder design/engineerings are different but the end result is the same. So if one is to claim superiority, it's likely come down to preference based on other aspects of the grinder.
In my use so far, there is not a single time that the need for chute sweeper arises. 99.9% of the time, the chute comes out sparkling clean with RDT. I find that I can even skip the funnel removal step (because there is literally nothing in the chute - so one less step). In the case of no-RDT, you would need to remove the funnel and sit it on the dosing funnel, give it a few knock to dislodge the grind. I find that using RDT just makes the process so much quicker. The addition of sweeper would accomplish nothing in my view. I had own a HG-1 with their sweeper and manage to break it accidentally.
But even when it was working, it doesn't do much - there will still be some static retention in the chute and the sweeper makes it harder to clean (it's in the way and you have to work gingerly with these sweeper).
The Stance being a straight through design, does benefit slightly more from performing a WDT. If they could incorporate some mixing mechanism that'd be great. However, this design tends to require more effort in keeping the retention truly zero (as in the Monolith you'd have to palm or tap the chute). Just a trade off for another in my view (both are fully acceptable) as almost all grinders when single dosed does require some WDT for best results (no matter how well aligned). So the WDT is worth it if you're pursuing the best result. If you are not, then it wouldn't matter either way.
As for the spring mechanism, it does hold up so far and I don't see why not for the foreseeable future. The spring tension is adjustable as well, I've had it at the least tight position and no slipping has occurred to date. The newer Monolith uses spring-loaded designs as well, as well as Mazzer and many other grinders which has been used in cafes for decades. In theory, a rigidly lock design will be better as it is on the Monolith Conical grinder I am using. But in actual experience, I've not found it to make any practical difference - other than you need to manually lock and unlock the grind setting. I trust Denis has tested and deemed it worthy to have incorporated in his newer Monoliths as well.
About the alignment, I've revisited the review unit I have and I don't see anything concerning. The burrs spin true and the results seem well. One thing though, the design approach of the grinder is very different from other grinders I've seen - which is why I don't fully grasp it. The burr holder is used to determined the relative height of the burrs (up and down movement), and the alignment of the grinder is determined by the clearance between the outer burr and housing. With the inner burr in, there is no perceptible movement (it's a very snug fit and insertion of outer burr requires care). From what Helor has told me, they have incorporated some design changes since the older Stance/102. I've requested for photos/details and was planning to post here but no luck yet.