The spin pole was decreased to 9.5'from 9.83'.

Again, you have to work with the PHRF variables in the standard formula to get the exact PHRF hit for maximium optimization. I wouldn't just get another pole from a J. It probably would not be maximized based on the formula.

It's not necessary to go to your committee, you can optimize the calculation yourself once you have the formula. We get all the measurement formulas in a PHRF mailout each year.

Looking back, my PHRF hit with the 9.83' pole was only 3 PHRF, not 6 as I previously stated. So by going higher and narrower ie. more efficient, my hit was an additional 6 PHRF to 9 total.

I went narrower due to optimization of my existing kites - I just added a panel in the middle.

The calculation is very exact, and what the PHRF committee says doesn't impact on the calculation.

And yes, 9 PHRF is a big hit for a relatively small increase in area. One notes that the formula penalizes smaller base calculation areas like the e27 vs others like a T10. A T10 here gets more actual kite area increase with a smaller PHRF hit! Something like over 100 sf for 6 PHRF.

Since the PHRF game is played here, you have to play it also if you want to stay competitive. If it were my personal choice, I'd rather race one design.

Finally, it is possible to fly the reacher from the masthead and it works, but the pole has to right near the top. It stays filled virtually all the time, as there's more wind aloft and you don't run into your own wind down low. However, I haven't tried it in a light air race yet to confirm the benefit. It does work, but I'm sure it looks a little strange. It may not be that strange though if I can keep moving when everybody else sits.

Cheers, and good sailing!