Let me try to help by providing the history of how we got to the current rule.
Obviously OEM sway bars are little wimpy things. The original SpecE30 rule, I think unchanged from it’s inception to Dec17, was intended to limit the size of the sways to 19/22. That was written with the assumption that everyone wanted stiffer sways, so it was targeted at the guy scheming re. how to do oversize bars. Since our cars were under-sprung, it was a reasonable assumption, imo.
The rule did not attempt to restrict smaller sway bars, because it was (prob accurately) assumed that smaller sways would be a disadvantage so no one would bother.,
We had some issues in 2017 Champ events (Sebring only?). This is 2nd hand so I might not have all the facts exactly right. There was an attempt to measure sways at Impound to confirm that they were legit. But it was found that measuring them was actually a little tricky. If the “can’t exceed” is 22m, what do you do when the dia at a bend exceeds that? Sure, that seems silly, but ask around re. Valvegate and you’ll understand that this sort of " no one would care" thing can have serious consequences.
There was a perception that the rule needed clarity re. how to make the measurement. So Shawn put in verbage that referenced “largest cylindrical point”.
Fast forward to today and our new springs. It is not necessarily a given anymore that stiff sways are good, so maybe someone might want to adjust the front bar weaker by installing a thinner bar. And now the rule seems to allow that, even it that wasn’t the intent.
Personally, I would be against additional adjustability. More adjustabilityadds complexity. It rewards those with the time and money to do additional testing of suspension adjustments. My thought is that we should just fix the wording to more closely reflect what was intended…the front bar needs to be 22mm.