I've only flown for 1 NG operator, but numerous other airlines on other B-types. This concept is a new one to me, but Lauda Air had a novel approach; that is I'd never heard of it before either. If the runway was grooved treat it as dry. They could not verify the validity of this as the guru who introduced the idea had left the company. They certainly didn't have any extra tables, just used the dry ones.
This opens up a related topic of Dry, Damp & Wet.
A grooved runway in the tropics, where you are most likely to need the extra water dispersal, is hardly going to be nearly dry in performance terms. It could easily be swimming (contaminated) with the weight of downpour.
However, in UK, ATC were forever saying the runway is WET when it's only damp after a passing shower. That can put you in a quandry if, by treating it as WET in performance terms, you can't get to where you want to go. When I asked ATC why they were using the term WET. they responded with a definition different to ours.
I'm a bit out of the loop now, but is this still the case? And just exactly what does damp mean in performance terms? Is it braking action good but not clean and dry".
Clear as mud to a blind horse.