Swift 94UL meets the ASTM D910 specification because it is essentially 100LL without the octane-boosting lead additive. To expect a novel high-octane fuel of different chemistry to meet the D910 specification is not logical. To expect an industry consensus organization that includes competitors to cooperate in establishing a commercial specification for it ignores a obvious conflict of interest.
GAMI developed its own production QC specification which is FAA approved (D910 is not, it’s a commercial consensus spec). Had GAMI gone the PAFI/EAGLE path we would still be waiting for a viable UL avgas solution and then as ASTM spec/blessing. I applaud their political courage and grit for spending over a decade of time and their own money to bring a solution to market. I cannot criticize them for their fee for FAA-required compliance with the STC. It seems in line with precedent and provides the beginnings of a ROI for their investment.