Update: I've done my own initial comparison of lithium vs. sodium chloropalladite and I got some interesting results. I compared Bostick and Sullivan sodium chloropalladite solution (palladium solution #3) vs. lithium chloropalladite solution I mixed myself (2.3g palladium chloride, 1.76 lithium chloride, 25ml H2O, [per R. Sullivan]). The sodium chloropalladite solution is several years old. I printed using a 4x5" negative shot on Arista EDU 200 (Fomapan 200) and developed in Pyrocat HD (rotary processing, 1:1:100), that had been developed for normal silver gelatin printing.
Results
Achieving equivalent prints on Weston Diploma Parchment required an exposure of 11 minutes and 1 drop of 20% NA2 with sodium chloropalladite, compared to an exposure of 3 minutes 45 seconds and 1 drop of 5% NA2 with lithium chloropalladite. In other words, the lithium chloropalladite coating was significantly faster and more contrasty. I didn't observe any difference in the warmth of the prints (developed in room temperature potassium oxalate).
Two possibilities come to mind. Either the sodium and lithium salts perform differently in terms of speed and contrast (at least on the Weston paper) or the sodium chloropalladite solution has degraded with age--losing speed and contrast. The obvious follow-up experiment would be making my own sodium chloropalladite solution, but I'm not anxious to do that given my preference for the speed and more economical NA2 use of the lithium chloropalladite. Has anyone seen similar results?