I may be mininterpreting your message, but I don't really buy that any of these are illusions. We have a 60 year old design, that was, in it's hayday, making 425 horsepower. Now, mild versions are well above 500 and using completely different components, different journal sizes, more aggressive camshafts, the OE just doesn't cut it. So good builders correct it. That being said, I don't think pushrod oiling is required, I really like the idea, but I do think that the 58 Edsel 361 design was inadequate for 550+ hp or thinking that even the CJ "pan lid" windage tray met oil requirements, would be a bigger illusion
Now if your saying that the original FE was adequate for the original uses, I'd say absolutely, then I agree completely, and a 200-350 hp motor likely needs absolutely nothing to run all day, but overall building for the intended use, these changes are generally for the better.
In utilizing the example you presented, I was attempting to demonstrate one such "illusion" of the popularly practiced restrictor installation to limit excessive oil loss to the rockers arm system in the FE, these such practices being often because "that's just the way we always done it", for "oil control", and it worked in some instances, just not all, aka we perhaps just created a new problem, this becoming evident particularly if one looks more closely, as in your observation of inequality of oil delivery among the rocker arms. And actually if you think about which process is more efficient at delivering oil to the rocker arms, whether thru the passage in the block & head to the shafts or thru each individual pushrod and spilled about the rocker, the 1958 Edsel wins hands down, no matter the horse power! 
Now, I didn't say that the observation of oil losses in the O.E. system as often encountered isn't perhaps excessive, particularly considering availability in some applications, but perhaps other means might be practiced which would enhance the O.E.'s engineering rather than short-circuiting it, as in perhaps the "illusion" of proper oil control created by the simple restrictor. This is how I intended my previous post to be interpreted. 
Also, there are a lot of different reasons why some components appear in even high dollar engine assemblies that may have nothing to do with being a solution to a particular engineering failure by the O.E., but they often do require significant help.
Scott.
\
I don't think we agree
I do not consider the Edsel better at controlling oil to
entire system, to include the crank, cam and other moving parts, even on a stocker nor do I consider it consistent across all rockers. I do however, think that if you do not take into account the crank,the cam, or the last rockers in the series on each head, yes, the original system is likely excessive in volume to most of the rockers making it effective
So although the feed may be very effective, it's not efficient because excess oil is better served elsewhere, that is why people restricted, because the entire system gains effectiveness with restriction, and rockers with proper clearance had so much extra oil that they had room to lose a little to make the entire oil management more effective. Keep in mind, this is from a guy who doesn't restrict much, and in some cases, not at all
One other thing, I think maybe you are confusing a purpose built rocker with a stock design when you say "
spilled about the rocker" The oil is pushed up the pushrod to a passage in the rocker, through the body, to a radial groove for pressure oiling, it's not like the big bleeds of a stock hydraulic rocker that would erupt upwards.
What it comes down to is IF you are running hydraulics, and IF you are running the rockers to use it, pushrod oiling is
muy bueno...however, the standard old school modifications are still very important with standard rockers, aftermarket or factory,if you want more than a stocker with stocker performance
