Good question. Maybe 15 years ago since I last used Foma 200 in 8X10. But susceptibility to scratching wasn't the issue. There were fine cracks parallel to the perimeter of the sheets, which told me it was something related to roller transport or cutting in the factory. Likewise, the "zit" flaws were not development related little craters, but inherent. In a few cases I was able to crop into the scene past the perimeter defects and get a printable image, but not exactly what I had originally hoped for.
One hypothesis is that the lion's share of the cut was made for Freestyle under their Arista label first. This would allow Foma to break even on the batch run, and then they'd slowly later cut down more for sake of their own label at higher profit margin. The suspicion was, if cut too early, it was more fracture prone. I dunno. Humidity could have something to do with it too. Private labeling of this particular film has been around a long time. I first saw it under Classic 200 label. Nearly everyone was disappointed who had used Super XX prior; and it's nowhere near as good as Bergger 200 either; but it is the last man standing in terms of a "straight line" film.
I always keep on hand FP4 and TMX100 for masking use in the lab, so tend to also shoot those two films. Or I'll sometimes thaw out a box of TMY400; that stockpile was purchased at about a third of the asking price today, but hard to say how long it will last. In the meantime, I'll keep my ears open about any alleged improvements with Foma. But its horrible reciprocity characteristics and rather slow native speed to begin with don't make for a happy marriage with the small f-stops routine to 8X10 shooting.