Magnus,
You have pointed out one of the other problems I see with the CCS and that is just as you stated so succinctly: a fast recovering rod doesn't have to be stiffer. This is correct provided we are talking about how quickly a rod recovers or returns to its unbent, static state after having been loaded and bent (or deflected). However, just because a rod has a fast recovery doesn't make it a fast action (i.e. stiff to most anglers) rod, it simply makes it a rod with fast recovery.
The rate of recovery is not measured by the CCS through either finding how much weight it takes to bend the rod the defined distance, nor does the angle of deflection of the tip (AA measurment) tell you the rate of recovery. Thus we need even more numbers to help in our quest to describe a rod, making it more and more difficult for the average angler to make sense of it.
Another problem I see with CCS is the average angler will see a 7 wt rod he is interested rated with CCS as 8.2 (rod A), compare it to a different rod that has a rating 7.1 (rod B), and still another one rated as 6.8 (rod C). Because he thinks (albeit wrongly) that the closer the CCS number is to 7.0 (the rod's line rating), the closer the rod is to a true 7 wt. This will cause him to most likely pass up the one rated as an 8.2 and the one rated as a 6.8 despite the fact that what he really likes and it looking for is a rod that bends well down into the butt (i.e. a soft rod), which would make the one rated 6.8 the best choice for what he is looking for. But because all he knows is that he wants a 7wt rod and that CCS shows one of the three he is interested in as a nominal 6 wt and the other as an 8 wt, he will pass them up since they are not 7 wts.
And average anglers will continue to do this despite Dr. Bill never having said a rod rated as an 8.2 is not a 7 wt rod.
With 2-handed rods I see even bigger problems because people are using the same rod with many different belly length lines, so they are asking the same rod to cast a huge grain window without overloading the blank. 2-handed rods are being asked to cast lines with bellies of 38', 44', 55', 65', 75', 85', 95' and 100', which is far different from what is being asked of single hand rods. Since we now have defined spey line standards for four different and distinct belly lengths, a CCS for 2-handed rods would have to measure a given rod with all four belly length weights and gather the data on how far the rods bends under each belly length weight. I see this as a problem because a given 2-hander would have at least four different and distinct CCS data sets just to account for the belly length differences.
The average angler wants a simple, easy to understand way to decide what line he should use on a rod. That is why the AFFTMA line standard for single-hand and not spey lines are so useful. A person can get a rod rated for a specific AFFTMA line number, buy a line with that number, and be reasonably sure the rod and line combo will work. Simple, easy, and elegant, which is what the average angler is looking for.
Like I said, I see the CCS having value for rod and blank manufacturers as quality assurance tool; but I see little value for the average angler.