Starting out with "Gold doesn't heal you" and then offering to sell water that contains gold seems not to work even within the sellers own theory.

One could have the observation that "gold is not the active ingredient" but then the question is what is? Premable the chants are only allowed to transform within the tradition if they still retain their functionality. But someone who doesn't know what the functionality is or how it does work seems unlikely to provide a variant that would be guaranteed to retain the functionality. Some traditional medicine preparation is followed so verbatim because it might be that nobody knows what is actually the active ingredient (and for some this is a separately discoverable fact). Not knowing what makes it work doesn't provide license to make it how one wants. There is a difference between being a user and a minter.

I think it at the face of it seems that reading out loud math formulas would be lousy for "setting mood". Trying to directly assses for mood and artsy qualities it seems it is pretty long even longer that haikus would be imagine that chants would be singficantly shorther than haikus. It also mixes nice clear vocals with complex unyieldy consonant complexes. So it smells like a compromise where being the total formula exactly is eating away room from other values. I don't consider to have good taste in these matters but there is a differdence between being a fan of music and a composer.

If people would start to pray to Charles Darwin I would have serious reservations that they would be committing the error of false idol. There are theories under which what your conception of what you are devoting to is not super important. Just copying surface asthetics seems not well oriented to preserve the core functionality. Even if the nominal apperance is not core to the thing it attracts and makes confusion for novices much more likely. One way that Islam fights people forming a belif that god is materially localised, anatomically human being is to set limits on depictions of the entity so such lineages of interpretaion have lesser grounds to arise. Here a similar issue could be of reverance for the letter of the law vs the spirit of it. Undue codification and frozenness of the references are more likely to make the applications "dead" and "distant".

And it is not a proof but bad-woo would look pretty indistinguishable.

The problem with guessing the teachers password is not that they have the wrong solution as the key but the whole approach to the content. I don't know how widespread it is but there is a pretty standardified meme about referring to short term-cramming strategies of repeating "Pike is a fish. Pike is a fish. Pike is a fish" to learn biology. Arguably "repetition is the mother of learning" and I could concieve that having a mantra of "consider probablities" that would associate to any question could nudge a person to answer questions with more nuance but having whole formulas in this mechanism seems not to be beneficial for that. And having the wrong shape of adaptation can be anti-utility in that repeating "pike is a fish" can become an obstacle of considereing and imagining pikes to be a kind of fish (trivia bank vs world modelling). One critism of standardised test is that they overload person with data intake and prevent them from processing and internalizing any of it. This approach seems to be very "written on paper" focused which seems very distant from the vibe of reverence and deep dwelling.

I do think that such a thing as "Bayesian Dharani" could probably be done but this seems more like a lipservice. I guess having such a thing gets started with the first draft but I would also question the desire to have such a thing. Why you can't just have a burger, why it needs to be a McDonalds burger? And then if we don't want there to be bread or stake then are we still making a burger?

Also why it is not the minor dharani or the moderate dharani? Do dharanis get to be born as great instead of proving against time to be great pieces?