THESE ARE GENUINE questions.
A hooter shooter will shoot arrows from a bow and have a very steady and repeatable aim, yes? It will release the string, and during the power stroke will have its own reaction, which will repeat time after time unless changes are made to the arrows or the bow fitted to its support mechanism, yes?
If the arrows all group together we can say that A) the arrows are well matched to each other, for weight (and possibly other parameters) yes?
B) the hooter shooter is using a bow that is shooting consistently shot after shot.Yes?
With different arrows, matched to each other, but not matched so well to the bow (according to spine charts) the same tight groups result, showing that the bow can perform very well even using arrows that some might consider to be less than ideal.... or... not recommended.
If the same bow and same arrows are used by an archer, the results are likely to be less good, the archer will vary in some ways on each shot and get results to match those variations. The hooter shooter shows that the variations are the result of the archer's weaknesses, not the equipment.
So, the archer then turns to the set up of the bow, in the belief( possibly) that a different setting will give them better results than previously, though never better than the machine shot ones. OR the archer then works on their form to reduce the damage caused by their variations.
My question is, how realistic is it to assume that a different set up will give better results?
The idea seems to stem from thinking that some set ups can reduce the damaging effect of their worst mistakes, or their most frequent mistakes.
It does seem to me that "Fine tuning" is done by better archers to find some setting that works better for them than other set ups.
Is this a recurve thing? Does it work for recurves and not for compounds with release aids?