Isn't it strange how "optimized" developers always have nice round numbers? 60, 5, 0.5, 2.5, 50, etc. How often do you see 56.37, 4.65, 0.47 and so forth? I am sometimes criticized for publishing formulas in volumetric measures because they are not sufficiently precise, but I have my doubts about the rounf numbers. I think perhaps Crawley uses the engineering standard. When the number is presented as, say, 60 grams, 5 grams more or less will do as well. When it is, say, 0.5 grams, any amount that rounds to 0.5 will do. If you expect 0.5 to mean 0.49 to 0.51, then you must specify 0.50 and so on.
This being the case, I will theorize that FX 37 can be mixed as follows:
2 1/2 tbs sodium sulfite, 1 1/2 tsp hydroquinone, 1 tsp anhydrous sodium carbonate, 1/8 tsp Phenidone slightly rounded, 1/2 tsp borax, a pinch od potassium bromide and a pinch of benzotriazole in a liter of water.
I expect anyone who believes that this formula will not give the same results as the formula found in "The Film Developing Cookbook", weighed to the maximum precision available, to prove it by experiment. Also, I expect the premise that FX 37 provides a film speed increase over Rodinal to prove that by experiment.