I can understand why that in your experience and with an untested half rating of the film, Reala might appear to hold more easily printable material in the highlights than Pro 160C. I do think that Reala and 160C have differently-shaped S curves, with Reala having a smoother shoulder, but I would say that actual total contrast range is about the same, based on printing test negs on the same paper. Tonal transitions were different, but actual paper black and paper white points were very similar.
Also I think from my own experience that this is only made more apparent as a result of the color response and saturation of the 160C. Due to its more "realistic" color and saturation, Reala loses more saturation than 160C in the more highly-toned areas of the neg. This makes these areas appear less bright even when they may technically be just as bright. It also makes them easier to burn cleanly without color casts or some muddiness. However, if you were to measure something like a contrast index, they would be very similar (as would Superia 100). I honestly find the largest difference between these three films to be the color, not the contrast. All are radically different in color response.
But, the point I was after is not really whether Reala or Pro 160C are more contrasty. The issue is whether or not "Fuji Superia Reala is low contrast", as you posted above. Reala is notably lower in contrast for you. However, I would still not say "Fuji Superia Reala is low contrast", given that it is still one of the more contrasty films made by Fuji. (I would say that it is one of the top three most contrasty Fujicolor emulsions.)
The really low-contrast films are Superia 800 and 1600 in my experience. I would call Superia 400, Pro 400H and Pro 800Z medium contrast, and Superia 100 and 200, Reala, and Pro160C high contrast. I might call Pro 160S on the borderline between low and medium contrast. Superia 800 and 1600 seem much lower contrast than it does.
I don't use Pro 160C for much, as I all around prefer Reala. When I want that 160C look, I print Reala on Ultra Endura paper instead of shooting 160C. I may start using 160C more for certain things, though, as Ultra paper is gone. Reala printed on Ultra paper is similar in color, but more contrasty than Pro 160C printed on Supra paper. Pro 160C on Ultra paper is pretty nuts!
One thing that I know for sure is that the little contrast and saturation comparison on the back of Fuji Pro film boxes is pretty well bunk. There is no way that Pro 800Z is just as contrasty as 160C.
Also, I believe there have been several people recommending to pull color neg. film. I do this myself, and fairly often. However, I tested first to find the "point of no return", shall we say. There is relatively little underdevelopment that you can do with color neg. before you have a crossover. I discovered, after many stupid tests, that I have fairly-easily-correctable shifts by taking about max. 20 sec off of the 3:15 development time (that is about 10%). I have difficult-to-correct shifts that are maybe just a hair off from being *truly* correctable, but close enough for gov't work, down to about 2:40 (about 20% off of 3:15). You can *highly* underdevelop transparency film, about as much as b/w. Not so with color neg., so be careful of what you are after before you decide to cut, for example, 30 or 40 percent development, like you might decide to do with a b/w or a transparency film.
And I am sure that Kodak highly discourages doing anything like this....well, Phtbbbbbt!
Try it! It's great fun. This is really a tool worth extensive experimenting for, IMO.