Why would any AUTOMATED lab deliberately alter their carefully maintained operating temperature for sake of a development tweak? That would be counterproductive unless you were asking for a huge quanitity of film to be done that way. They'd waste a lot of time needing to restore ordinary temp equilibrium before they could do any of their routine orders. Are you sure that is how they did it, or was what involved in a "Push"? If so, it doesn't make much sense unless they had parallel machines running, and even then it would have been a clumsy way to make money. Maybe some dude behind the counter explained it incorrectly. Otherwise, gamble all you want to.
The emulsion of certain Efke films would melt at anything over 75F. I've seen Kodak films reticulate at high temperatures. I've personally had edge frilling of current TMax sheets right at 75F - not the end of the world, involving just the perimeter itself, but an annoying risk of little bits of edge emulsion getting stuck onto the main image.
But I guess some people mistake the term "bootleg" for brewing their hooch inside an old boot, and don't mind swallowing that either. If you can afford the time to tinker with film all kinds of peculiar ways, have at it, and see what happens, and indeed comment. But don't pass it along as reliable general information, because these kinds of variables tend to add up in ways that can result in real headaches. I can't personally afford to follow half-tested rumors. TMax is now running about 9 dollars per 8x10 sheet, and even if only 120 film were involved, there might have been a lot of effort put into exposing that roll. I've come back from hundred mile treks over steep terrain with such rolls. I need predictable consistency, not any "what if" surprises.
But since you did not monitor such temperatures yourself, and deferred the processing to a lab, how can you at this point scientifically state those temperatures were in fact involved. Ever hear of a double-blind test?