I'm missing something. Gene does not teach an offset -- he is still a "noser." In CTE all shots are hit with a visual offset. For a straight in shot, as an example, my vision is offset from straight in (unlike a "noser") and I am pivoting a 15 degree inside to hit the ball straight. How does that put the CTE player and the noser in the same position?
Well, I guess you would need to do the research to find out the answer to that. I don't know what a noser is, never heard that term before. On a straight in shot like on almost all shots there is a set of lines that can be adopted to make the object ball with a center ball hit. In order to find out which methods consistently result in the pool cue center line being on which of the lines inside the margin or error I would think one would need to design an experiment of some complexity to gather accurate data.
OR, one can do as Bruce Lee directed, try everything and keep what works.
Academically, the testing would be pretty cool if it resulted in a lot of data and hopefully some new insights. When the Jacksonville Experiment was done and Bob Jewett (or someone) revealed that all miscues are fouls which are too fast for the human eye to catch I was impressed. I like that sort of stuff.
From a practical standpoint is it more important to know how an engine works before driving a car or is is more important to be able to drive the car properly? If one needs milk for the kids and Bill says take my car should I study the engine schematics or should I go ahead and use the car and learn the particular placement of the relevant buttons and switches?
If Gene teaches something that results in the student being lined up correctly on the shot line as consistently and comfortably as the student wishes to be then exactly where the eyes are in space time relative to the pool cue and the cue ball is not in way material to where that same student's eyes are if said student uses CTE and gets lined up comfortably and consistently on the shot line as satisfactorily as they are happy with.
The wonderful thing about aiming systems and people who really focus on the dominant eye is that aiming is given much more attention. As a student of aiming systems in a semi-scholarly way for the past 20 years and a sort of a collector of old instruction books I can say that aiming was barely covered in most of the older books I have read. And that led to my belief that aiming was a byproduct of trial and error practice hitting shots. I, like many players still think, thought that ghost ball was a beginner's guide to aiming but was just intended to give a mental imagination trick to aid in aiming until one developed muscle memory and feel. I never thought that aiming could be much more focused and precise and objective. Hal Houle taught me that I wrong. Stan Shuffet and several others took it upon themselves to go deeper with Hal and from those interactions have come several aiming methods based in whole or in part on Hal's systems. And we have others, poolology, split the difference, 90/90, the SEE System, as well as a bunch of hybrids people have sort of made up that are based in some way on some of the previously mentioned systems. Lots of choices for those interested in focusing on the aiming part of the shot process. I know good players who learned from Stan and Gene and they use the lessons from both, I imagine that they can better explain to you how each of those instructors helped them specifically but I would guess it boils down to keep what works.