I tuned it up, got it running good, then pulled that box and the carbs off, put 120 mains in em, put pods on, and never looked back. It runs great...and I know what it ran like BP (before pods) and.... it is unquestionably better now! The PO thought so too after a test ride when I got it done.
The problem is that we can't verify the subjective opinion.
1 - pods aren't a specification, they are a style. They vary in operational specification among manufacturers. A Honda runs well, a Harley runs well, therefore a Honda is the same as a Harley? Most would agree that's not so, I think.
2- Your "test case example" is not "a bike tuned to factory specs" vs one with a pods change. (How do you know it ran as well as showroom stock before the change?)
3- Your assertion implies that all anyone need to do is put anything with a "pods" label on the bike and it absolutely must improve the bike in every way, based purely on your testimonial example of just one unbounded "test case". But, the only quantifiable supportive data is the MPG number, and I've seen reports of owners with stock bikes claim higher numbers.
No flat spots, no hesitation, wind doesn't seem to bother it, and it's got GUTS!!! It's my daily transport on a 100 mile a day round trip, I got no complaints at 45 MPG, and it looks good 
The operational performance of a bike is often tested and there are magazine reports that quantify the testing and provide numbers for things like 0-60 times, 1/4 miles times, HP curves, etc. That is quantifiable, measurable, often repeatable data.
As a parallel, drugs are tested double blind, so that neither the tester or the subject know which pill is placebo and which is a real compound.
When you change your bike, you have expectations of improved performance. If the bike "sounds" faster, the rider believe it is faster. It may be, or it may just be louder. Pods are certainly less effective at intake noise reduction than the stock induction.
It is human nature to desire reward for effort. We are always expecting a benefit for the changes we make to our machines. That expectation can lead to perception that is really not there in reality.
If there were no performance benchmarks before a modification, how to you tell or convince others that what you did was the true cause of what you perceive to be a benefit. In engineering, the numbers speak for themselves. Opinions or hearsay means nothing, and is never offered as a "proof" that change A or B is better under the same conditions and the original unmodified unit.
If you indeed improved the machine, then measurable data will prove it so, as in your MPG number offered (what was it before "pods"?), there are other "performance quantifications" that will prove it beyond a human "butt dyno's" ability.
That is why the debate continues. I've yet to see proof that ANY pods actually make a demonstrable improvement in performance. There have been many opinions offered. Many are style orientated. But, none offered so far compare the stock engine with stock induction, to a stock engine with modified induction, using objective, quantifiable before and after performance numbers.
Most of the arguments hinge on the "pods make me feel better about the machine" orientation. An argument that can have a wide range of meaning dependent on the blood alcohol level of the debater, (or other, more normal, state-of-mind factors). Just how does anyone quantify a bike with "guts"? Do you really think the original bike sold so well because it lacked "guts"? How is "guts" a definitive term?
I can appreciate that you are happy with your bike. And, that is fine with me. But, how can anyone state that any bike with "pods" must automatically be superior to one without such, having never used comparative, measurable data?
I can't argue with a "style" preference. But, if you are to claim any "performance benefit", that is an argument requiring quantifiable, measurable data rather than just boasts and feelings.
I'm not trying to beat anybody up. Just looking for the facts. In theory, a well designed pod type filter should allow higher chamber oxygen contents than the stock induction at very high inlet velocities, such as at or above red line RPMs. I do not believe they have any benefit below those high operational ranges. And, I've seen no proof otherwise that has ever been offered contrary to that theory. Since a street bike seldom operates at or above red line, it's street operational benefits are quite limited, even if the carbs have been perfectly readjusted to accommodate ideal pods.
Does that explain my position clearly? (No prejudice, intended.)
Cheers,
