I understand the rules and the definition of wind-aided. That is clear for record purposes. That is not what is being disputed.
The belief of whether or not a time is heavily wind-aided is obviously a subjective evaluation of the performance boost from the wind. I don’t think 2.5 would qualify as heavily wind-aided-again this point has nothing to do with records.
Additionally, the NCAA permits qualifying marks for regionals as long as the performances were not aided with tailwinds higher than 4.0.
I think we are talking about two different things here. You are speaking of records and I am talking about how far above a wind legal mark of 2.0 that 2.5 would be-not much different. I think that was the original point too.