Solution here is probably to use a developer with higher concentration of developing agent, but at a lower pH to slow down the process. D-23 is a good choice, perhaps diluted 1+1 or 1+2. This should normally be used one-shot; 250 ml of D-23 will develop an 8x10, a liter will do four -- but even with the high sulfite content, it usually isn't recommended to store diluted D-23 past the single session.
I used until now D-23 stock, replenished with DK-25R because it's very convenient, lasts a while. I do one sheet 8x10 at a time, replenish, do the next sheet, etc.
When reading about metol variants I recalled vaguely TDLC-103 mentioned some places. I have the 2nd edition of Bill Troop, Steve Anchell "The film developing cookbook" and TDLC-103 is mentioned in the "Other low contrast developers" section after POTA.
I was surprised how little metol. In fact they mention down to 0,25g by liter:
There is no apparent need for HQ in either formula at this pH. Contrast
with this formula and T/O XDR-4 is somewhat higher than POTA. Most
importantly, the Phenidone streaking problem is eliminated. e 1g/L of
metol called for in the T/O XDR-4 may not be low enough. I have modified
TDLC-103 to use 0.25 to 1 g/L of metol. I reduced sulfite as well: 25 g/L
could be too solvent for some document films. By allowing more oxidation
of the metol, the lower level of sulfite should also result in more controlled
highlight gradation, and more adjacency effects.
Actually, most developing agents can be used for document films, if the
amount of the agent is low enough. Formulas with metol, metol-glycin, or
pyrocatein can be prepared with carbonate as alkali. Su developers are
similar to the traditional high acutance compensating formulas, except that
the amount of developing agent is approximately half, and the carbonate is
proportionately higher.
e tenique is to keep the total amount of developing agent between
0.15 and 0.3 grams per liter of solution. is assumes rather high carbonate
alkalinity.
I was surprised by the low amount of metol. Searching a bit more around, it seems for sure 0,3g is enough for a 120 roll in 500ml.
But Troop formula is for 1 liter of water and they tell nothing about uneven distribution of the chemicals in the solution and specifics of processing and agitation.
By the way, as for the distribution and flow of fluid in the developing container, this is what I use for regular (single-sided) 8x10/18x24 sheets, with inversions or continuous rolling or standing.
Long time ago it did hit me that bottles of Tetenal BW chemicals are 100% opaque and almost the diameter of a steel tank for 35mm/120mm spirals. A Kindermann-like lid does snap into place with a bit of pressure around the edge of that plastic cylinder. Two empty bottles needed, some glue/tape, thin perforated aluminium sheet and a plastic paper binder (for separator):
ok, so that is basically a slightly wider Kindermann tank, higher than one for 3x 120 spirals but smaller than a 4 or 5 spirals. 1100ml liquid does cover a 8x10 sheet, and less than a 1000ml a 18x24 sheet (2cm less width).
Perfect for continuous rolling or inversions. I do all my regular 8x10 sheets (Foma, Ilford) with this no problem.
that's what i used for the 2nd negative.
----
I was considering to test other formulas metol-based, but when I read Troop, Anchell about TDLC-103 I went for this one. Because if they said 1g/liter or less metol works, then why bother with D-23 1+1 or 1+3 ?
But obviously there's more to this....