JeroenC, many posts imply that modulated only refers to AB control - the regulation of brake pressure to achieve the selected deceleration. ‘Unmodulated’ braking in this sense is without AB limit or influence; however braking systems still have some form of modulation (controlled or regulated brake pressure) for the anti-skid function, which may be an integral part of the overall AB system.
LSM, 3250psi hydraulic pressure might be available to the braking system, but not necessarily the pressure used for RTO, thus 3000psi is max? Yet even this may be reduced due to anti-skid protection – which is a function of runway surface etc. Is this what you were implying?
BOAC, as I understand the question, the problem relates to the small differences in distance irrespective of the use of Rev, and in particular to no difference when using AB 3, for a particular aircraft model.
I do not have a precise answer; nor do I disagree with Denti #4.
Many views appear to be restricted to the pure technical (theoretical) aspects of AB / Rev, whereas the distances involve ‘time’ assumptions in selecting and operation of rev, - the time to achieve full reverse and for AB to stabilise the deceleration; I do not know what these assumptions are. In addition there are other assumptions in the distance calculations involving runway condition/brake system characteristics which limit the deceleration from the brakes, but do not apply to the reverser contribution to the overall deceleration.
Thus although page 25 shows that with/without rev the MAX AB decelerations are identical (theory), the advisory distance data (practical) can differ, and also that these distances / differences may vary with aircraft/engine model and the certification standard (FAA/EASA), but sometimes practice = theory = '0'.