My memory of my experience with Diafine and Accufine was that the ASA/EI numbers were wildly optimistic, wishful thinking or maybe just downright fraudulent. Maybe they just slipped a decimal point - results with Tr-X exposed at EI 240 will be OK; at EI 2400 there will be little density, no shadow detail and and a very flat negative.
Wild EI claims for developers were not uncommon in the 1960's. Edwal was another developer maker with exagerated EI numbers. Kodak did not succumb to the fad, though to tell the truth Kodak's EI ratings were maybe 2/3 of a stop optimistic. Yes, you would get good results if you controlled lighting ratios and stayed away from sunlight, but for most of the rest of us TRI-X at 240-320 (coupled with a ~15% reduction in developing time) worked better.