I'm a big believer in flouros and am a big fish enthusiast as well but I'm having a hard time with this... I didn't read the entire thread - did yields rise rapidly after the initial test run? 1 oz from 116w is pretty terrible; I yielded 6oz from 388w of CFL during my initial test run with them - nearly twice the the g/w and that barely compares to my HID grows. All 388w of my CFL cost me $5, that's 1/4 the price of a single UVL bulb.
I totally agree that spectrum is often overlooked but side by side comparisons always show the standard flouros to do better when growing plants. Hard to argue with side by side scientific testing (I'm talking about fish tank plant testing as they tend to be much more scientific than pot growers and accurate info is much easier to find). If you went onto a coral forum and told them that using just actinic would grow better coral than a MH they would laugh - and that's what these bulbs are made for.
Actinic bulbs penetrate water well and help with particular algae but even coral people admit that they don't grow plants very well. Here is a great aquarium site with a TON of useful scientific information. Even here they state that most 6500k grow flouros will out do actinics/narrow range bulbs.
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Lighting.html