Your opinion assumes it would be in Mazda's best interest.
In my opinion the average person who buys a CX-5 N/A that runs on regular gas do so for mpg and cost reasons.
But the reality is, your & my opinions are moot, the only people who know what's in Mazda's best interest are those employees at Mazda that get paid to decide such things.
Opinions are basically hors d'oeuvres for 6 course meal of arguments.

 

The problem with using “dyno runs” to confirm a performance increase is that it isn’t real world. Dyno data is collected at WOT - but how much of our total driving time is done at WOT? Almost none. Part-throttle performance is much more important for overall driving enjoyment - but no one dynos that.

Data logging several of my last vehicles, particularly the turbocharged ones, showed that part throttle tip in at low/mid rpm often resulted in timing being pulled due to knock detection. This was particularly noticeable when driving in summer temperatures - no surprise there. If running 87 octane fuel causes the ECU to pull timing, then higher octane fuel will result in sharper throttle response and a better driving experience. To some of us, that’s important.

 

I don't think a dyno would catch the torque gains from high octane either. The gains in torque I like the most from 95 octane are below 3k rpm, mainly even lower then that like around 2k rpm, part throttle, 80 degree outside air temp. Closed loop mode.

Let's say your cruising in city stop and go traffic at 35 mph, you can roll into the throttle a little bit and the car will pull nicely with having to down shift.

I live in a rather hilly area, and when I ran 87 octane on a 90° day, I found myself putting the car into manual mode and holding shifts longer going up hills to get the damn thing to keep up with traffic.

When I run 95 octane I find that I don't put it into manual mode, and I just roll on the throttle a little bit and it pulls right up hills without downshifting.

On 87 octane the car would also start pinging halfway up the hill. 91 octane has less pinging. Running an E30 mixture at around 94 octane had zero pinging and pulls like an electric motor at low RPMs.

 

You would need to get the actual dyno runs for each octane you are comparing to prove one way or the other.
Not doing so is simply speculation as to what the "performance" actually is.
Modern dyno's are capable of step-tests, constant-speed pulls, and even part-throttle testing.

 

I am pretty sure that even if you did get Dyno results, Lobster would say you used the wrong Dyno.

Even if you use the dyno that he said you should use, he would say that the operator didn't know what they were doing.

Then if you got the right dyno, and the right operator, he would say that we can't trust what actual octane you put in the tank.

Even if you fixed all these problems in the end he would just say you can't trust any dyno results.

 

You have a severe abnormality in the frontal lobe of your brain.
No neurosurgeon exams or MRI's are required.
Your comments here are more than enough diagnostic information to make a definitive assessment.

You see, anyone can play your game.

 

Do you have any dyno graphs to prove it?

 

It's worse than I thought.
You've forgotten the point you were trying to make.
As you implied, dyno graphs are useless, I can just "feel" your condition has gotten worse...

 

Do you believe the dyno graph for this air filter?

 

I'm guessing you're one who believed the 2020 election was stolen...