Please read carefully.
Ashley says that the knots are the same; you have tried to
make this into something beyond the obvious meaning.
He gives AN ARROW to show the movement one makes
given that “Uni” form in order to obtain the other form.
You can see this in your own (nice!) drawings by going
in reverse, from your finished #1120 (bottom) knot, by
pushing coils starting with the red=>yellow turn rightwards
back around/over the knot to the right end,
ultimately leaving the blue tail adjacent to the red turn,
as shown for #1121.
And this I said was done by one in dressing the knot.
(Ashley doesn’t seem top know about nylon --it was invented
as a material only circa 1935, and although Barnes reports
using monofil in '39, well, much of ABOK might’ve already
been pretty well cast.)
What I said about transformations in monofil --highlighted in blue–
was that this seemingly is supposed to occur by prescribed setting
of the knot, pulling on both ends. That you tested this in 10mm?
kernmantle rope and came up short is no surprise; BUT you can
see a similar transformation by tying a multiple overhand (tuck
& tuck again & tuck yet again), where the wraps/twists of the
ends forming what Harry Asher named “the spine” opposite the “belly”
will throw off their twists into the belly, reducing to a single twist,
all the rest now overwraps above this --the strangle form, as you
nicely illustrate.
In any case, in unconverted practice the two knots are treated separately, and can be compared to each other with regard to strength -- which was my original question.
I don’t know about this “unconverted practice”, but do suspect that
there are some not-so-fully/well-converted results, which leads to the
divergent opinions about the Uni knot. Typical illustrations are crystal
clear on the formation initially, then go indiscernibly squiggly about
the result of setting --but SELDOM show the clear surrounding pat
that you put so well, which is what a simply tightened knot of the
exploded form should yield (non-monofil)! (Some show what seems
to be a sort of not-absorbed/-surrounded simple overhand structure
at one end, as though the transformation was only partial, and the
artist pretty accurate!?)
A similar problem exists in presentations of the blood knot, where
often the --what Barnes calls-- outcoil tying is done (wrapping
each end away from knot center, then reaching back to tuck the
ends, vs. tying incoil towards this tuck); in monofilament line,
where the knot is born & used, an incoil knot results, inevitably;
but in more frictive, larger stuff, one is likely to get an incomplete
transformation or none at all. The Net is terrific at parroting nonsense!
Beyond this issue of correctness, yes, your query about effects
of structure --no matter how got or why-- should advance some
understanding. Ring diameter & nature in this noose hitch needs
to be considered; Agent_Smith echoed my note about the one
hitch being tested in 8mm kernmantle (I think you can Google
that name, and a caving host holds the results).