Some comments...
- Your results are as expected
- The only critique I have is that you didn't reveal timing and AFR data (bung placement not tailpipe). I believe you were just shooting for a bolt on and dyno methodology but the AFR would have really highlighted the effects on the MAF accuracy vs stock. Only the stock intake MAF numbers can be considered accurate. To say CAI has higher MAF numbers doesn't mean it's flowing more. The only way to conclude that would be to have the timing and AFR match at a given RPM to the stock data - AND - the dyno curves show a gain at that RPM.
- MAP data would have helped clear the picture as well. If the MAP didn't move any significant amount between runs across the RPM band the intakes aren't doing squat for improved mass air flow.
- Rotofab might have something to offer. I'd have faith in them if they wills be willing to show AFR and timing on same day runs under similar weather conditions.
- A differential pressure meter would put to rest where the restrictions are and if there are areas for improvement (i.e. Larger filter or larger inlet or whatever). If there isn't a significant pressure drop across an element or from one end of the intake to the other then there just isn't much to be gained by engineering a new piece of plastic.