Putting some numbers on this I did a few experiments.  First I made a few stones (with the modality of healing since it's the easiest to test)  Same ratio of metals to the basic healing materials but in case 'B' I made them solid without any amplification.  In case 'A' I made them with all the amplifying methods.  (center with Swish, Sophia & Buddha / outer with attunement, Christ & radiator)   This was done simply by using the respective fluids when binding.   After the stones were completed & sealed (with impermeable paint) I took them to bed with me to test them in the morning on various chakras.  (Healing stones are great over the heart chakra when feeling sad or over the gut chakra when you have indigestion)  This is all approximate of course since it's somewhat subjective, but luckily I had a little indigestion this morning.  I could put on roughly enough stones of one to seem about the same as the other and then later compare the weights of the stones.  Doing this I found that ounce for ounce, the 'amplified' stones are between 40% to 300% (4 times) stronger than the unamplified.  It's not that simple, the amplified seem to take longer to 'work'  (like 10 seconds instead of immediate) but that should be fine for most applications.  The variations are partly due to the particular pains I may of felt at the time or the chakra in question but on average, let's say they are twice as strong.

2) The other test was to bring the percentage of .325 mesh stainless steal metal up to 15% by volume.   Doing so increased the strength by 75% to 100%.  (This was done with amplified stones)  Unfortunately, there was no exact measure of the ones these were compared to.  They were made with a mix of metals totaling maybe half as much metal exposed area.  This is just a guess though.  Next experiment would be to make more with known amounts of the same stainless.

This is all approximate and anecdotal in nature, however, it gives us the sense that there is something to using the more laborious methods & better materials.   Furthermore, according to WR, the metal amplification is proportional to the area of the metal inside, which is of course proportional to the square of the radius of the particle size.   Meanwhile, the weight is of course proportional to the cube of the radius.  Therefore, if we could use a powder of 1000th the radius we may get an object of 100 times the strength!  Since 325 mesh corresponds to 44 microns, 1000th of this size would be 44 nanometers.  Objects this size would be maybe a few hundred atoms thick.  Even though it's stainless steel there is still some likelihood that there will be chemical action eating into the particle several atoms deep.  To boot, metal is used for it's reflective properties.  These properties do not exist for single metals atoms but rather in the metallic bonds of hundreds of atoms.  Therefore, 44nm would be about the smallest particle size we should consider.  In fact, the fluids contain cells which would be 1000s of nm in diameter.  It is not known if the properties come from something these cells produce, from the cells themselves or both.  So we should try particles sizes of diameters about 100 times this as well, roughly 4400 nm which is roughly the diameter of one of these cells.  By volume area ratio we would expect stones made with this to be roughly 5 to 6 times stronger than the current model. Depending what we find available online, we will proceed with at least 2 different sized.  One in the ballpark of a cell size and another considerable smaller.  If the smallest size does not see further magnification we can assume that the properties come from the cells themselves as opposed to what they secrete.  In the event that further amplification is achieved we can consider semipermeable membranes to keep the cells out & make our ingredients finer & finer.  (We have used metals like aluminum in the past only to witness obvious chemical reactions - heating & bubbling.  Steel has proven less reactive, at least steel of the sizes we have been using.  It is not unlikely that this could get worse with smaller particle size.  Decisions will pend on prices & availability however particle sizes significantly smaller than 44 microns will be sought)  So, we have 2 experiments (a) where we would make such an object using finer metals.

Besides this we will in the meanwhile (b) make a quantified experiment in part 2) with a significantly lower stainless steel ratio.

Lastly, If we can limit ourselves to the fluids & powders, the thought comes to mind of, in the long run, using a 3d printer to make our objects.  We are currently premaking powders over several iterations.  The idea of all these iterations is to add extra intention each time.  If this proves unimportant, we can consider this route.  This means, another experiment would to (c) be to make an object, just with the fluids, metal & binder outside of  a ritual without any premade powder to see if this this has different properties.