EOU, thanks for posting the interesting results of the section two. It is good food for thought. 
From a geometrical point of view the edge apex width of the initially sharpened blades was circa 0.4 microns. The sharpness after the edge rolling (POST SET) dropped circa to the half of the initial sharpness. This may be interpreted as an increase of the "effective" edge apex width by almost 100%, to some 0.8 microns. In my understanding the edge rolling does not change significantly the edge apex width and so the "effective" edge apex width describes how the rolled edge interacts with the test medium.
The riddle is why there is not a more significant difference between lower and higher HRC levels of the tested blades.
Jan
From a geometrical point of view the edge apex width of the initially sharpened blades was circa 0.4 microns. The sharpness after the edge rolling (POST SET) dropped circa to the half of the initial sharpness. This may be interpreted as an increase of the "effective" edge apex width by almost 100%, to some 0.8 microns. In my understanding the edge rolling does not change significantly the edge apex width and so the "effective" edge apex width describes how the rolled edge interacts with the test medium.
The riddle is why there is not a more significant difference between lower and higher HRC levels of the tested blades.
Jan