Once again, it's fine to state how you do something that you believe works well for you you, but it's irresponsible to try to use that anecdote against the recommendations of manufacturers and contradict what is essentially established knowledge.
Plain fixer at higher dilutions hasn't been studied because there's no reason to study it. I have studied and used it over the last years and find it interesting. It keeps much better at lower dilutions than it does at higher dilutions. My 34g/L solutions keeps for two days in partially full stoppered bottles. The standard 240g/L hypo dilutions don't even keep overnight. It's narrow minded and a bit absurd to accuse me of being irresponsible.
If
@Rudeofus says that your fixer dilution will almost certainly not completely fix your film, his opinion has easily as much weight as yours. You're not offering any proof of anything other than "Looks good to me" so there is no substantial ground for argument.
Well, there's little details like 240g/L plain fixer have historically reported capacities of a square inch of film per 100mg of hypo. At my dilution, I'm almost double that amount.
Personally, I say if you can get what you want soaking your film in sea water, go for it. Has nothing to do with me. And chances are your negatives don't need to last longer than it takes to scan them or make a couple of prints - almost none do. So go ahead with the weak fix method. But don't tell others to do it unless you can objectively prove it does always completely fix the film.
If this topic has nothing to do with you, why are you insulting me and my work? Just negative by nature? You are the one telling people what to do, not me. I'm simply reporting good news and don't need to prove anything. All you need is some common sense and the desire to explore.