I see two basic problems with J443 verification.
The first is that the derived peening intensity time, T1, rarely corresponds to an integral number of passes/strokes/rotations. Target verification arc height at an integral number can easily be calculated using the equation derived for the saturation curve (assuming computer-based analysis of data sets is being used). A convenient integral number of passes is substituted into the equation and out pops the corresponding point on the saturation curve. This technique is available as a simple add-on to any of the Solver programs.
The second problem relates to multiple holders. Again, target verification arc heights can be generated by substituting into the corresponding equations for each holder. It seems logical to adopt a precise 'rule' governing choice of peening 'time'. Why not take the average of the several T1 times and round that up to the nearest integral number of passes? Conversely, it seems illogical to insist on a blanket +/-0.0015" variation. Some users may be happy with a larger variation and some may require a smaller variation - especially for critical components. The significance of +/-0.0015" also depends on the required intensity limits.
