We worked with camouflage in the now-defunct "Survival to Operate" office in ACAS's empire, and indeed were visited by Mr Barley.
Amongst the assorted old items in our office library was a WW2 Camouflage Manual, which noted that disruptive patterns (in hangars) needed to be a minimum of 10 yards across (or some similar figure) to be effective at any distance. Anything smaller would just resolve into a "dark shape" with no disruptive capability at all.
The cute little wiggly lines on aircraft are/were almost pointless unless being examined through a cam net at a range of a few hundred yards.
In addition, one needs to consider the background (dark or light, sky or ground) and the AOB of the aircraft. Bank 90º and your wiggly dark two-tone top scheme gets replaced by light underside (sky) scheme. So one size does''t fit all, especially in the case of manoeuvring fast jets. The Hemp scheme for Nimrod and Tankers was evolved to provide some colour conformity with concrete airfield surfaces when on the ground (As
Nutloose has said while I was typing!) ... an airborne scheme not deemed necessary, as the aircraft would not (hopefully) operate in hostile airspace.
We did discuss with Mr Barley the idea of "one wing dark on top and the other light" and reversing that on the underside. Similar treatment for fuselage sections. But BIG areas. The idea was that in a manoeuvring fight, the mix of dark/light effects might serve to confuse the aggressor as to which side was up and which way it was turning. We were going to commission a trial job on a Hawk to determine usefulness, but then The Wall came down and our Team was disbanded.