>Schillinger only claims that "the micro-units are the best >averages for >all differences between units of the 12th root of 2 and just intonation >(natural scale)".
No, Schillinger also claims that his system can represent "mean temperament," which must mean meantone temperament. This was both in your original quote and in Brian McLaren's Xenharmonikon 17 article, "A Short History of Microtonality in the 20th Century." But Schillinger is incorrect. Meantone tuning, the tuning of choice for music from 1500-1700 and much music thereafter, is built upon consecutive perfect fifths of 694.8 to 698.4 cents. 144tET ("double equal temperament") contains no intervals between 691.7 and 700 cents, so cannot represent meantone tuning. 288tET does have a 695.8-cent interval, so it can be used to represent meantone tuning.
Although I'm probably one of very few people to have already read McLaren's XH17 article, it does contain other factual inaccuracies, some McLaren's own. For example, a positive tuning is one with perfect fifths larger than 700 cents, not necessarily one with perfect fifths larger than the just 3/2 (702 cents). However, the article is amazingly comprehensive and I wish I had had access to all that information earlier. Apparantly, Bosanquet studied 22-tET extensively, and Ogolevets proclaimed it the future of music (along with 17-tET). The section of my paper entitled "History of 22" now seems really underinformed. But my chances of ever being able to get a hold of those writings seems very small -- anyone know if McLaren actually had the primary sources on hand?