I think this analysis from post #216 may be the most informative. The saw tooth at the far right of this analysis is at OEM ride height. You're looking at camber and FAP height and from other images I've posted, the kinematic roll center is also under good control here, which is not a coincidence since it is also the area with the least camber gain.
What I see is at steady ride height, the FAP heights vary greatly with roll angle. The FAPs also pass through the ground plane at lower ride heights and you can see from the list on the right JackCGL is negative while JackCGR is positive when FAPheightL is negative and FAPheightR is positive. I would think just like I stated with the kinematic roll center, you wouldn't really want the FAPs to pass back and forth through the ground plane every time you turn the car.
Additionally, camber gain with some steering is quite large even at OEM ride height and you guys now have that quantified. I think this is also why Jarrett at Raceseng suggested up to 1deg more caster made a big improvement.