I'm not a native english speaker or completely familiar with the term, but it seems to me that the behaviour you are proposing is simply "testing" rather than "shit-testing".

From what I understood, shit-testing refers to behaviours that stress, impact negatively or try to entrap the partner to check his/her reactions.

Debating or discussing issues is an enjoyable activity for many people, and providing contrary evidence or asking someone to better explain or prove his position shouldn't have any negative consequence for the target (if it does, then running for the hills seems a reasonable response), so it seems just a way as any other to investigate his interests or traits while conversing with him.

Purposefully providing bad behaviour to see how she'd try to shape it does seems more like shit-testing. 

I'd expect that in the early stage of a relationship such attempts would either be ignored, as you suppose, or reduce the chances a partner would want the relationship to become long term. I think most people expects their partner to be on their "best behaviour" in the early stage, since it's what they are doing, so seeing bad behaviour then would 1) make them assume even the partner's best behaviour isn't that good and 2) cause them to evaluate whether tolerate it and continue the relationship or not when there would be a lot less reasons to than later on. Even if you don't mind this outcome on the first date, I hardly imagine someone who is reconsidering the chances of the date to evolve in a relationship would provide a shaping attempt, since they wouldn't see many reasons to put in that effort. My impression is that shit-testing is only effective at selecting for meek, insecure or remissive partners, since they are the ones who most likely wouldn't consider early bad behaviour as a deal breaker.

So, especially taking in your priorities where the information have to be gained quickly, and even accounting that you don't mind having many dates not work out as long as you can avoid bonding with the wrong partner, it seems to me that "shit-testing" wouldn't serve you well, since the responses you'd get to negative behaviour would almost always be extremely different than the ones you'd get later in the relationship. I'd advise to stick to "testing" and refer to it that way, since the term shit-testing would likely cause your brain to suggest needlessly "mean" strategies.

To test the shaping behaviour, I think you could: 

1. Try providing good behaviour you'd like to be reinforced from her, to check if she uses reinforcements as shaping.
2. Discuss what you both like or don't like in a partner to find out which traits she'd try to change.
3. Discuss previous instances when you had to react to behaviours you didn't like to elicit the same kind of anecdotes by her (or discuss theoretical scenarios).
4. Once in a relationship, try to shape her shaping with rewards to the kind of shaping you'd like her to use.

I'd renounce straight away to test for watching the Diana Fleishman lecture unless you are dating partners coming from very specific knowledge backgrounds (cognitive-behavioural studies and rationality studies), I'd expect it would be very, very hard to not have early mentions of such arguments read as you wanting to control your partner or manipulate it. To clarify: I'm 100% aware that is not what it is about and that it isn't what you want, just stating that people who aren't really familiar with that background or really trusting toward you would see it as a huge red warning sign and would react negatively.

You could try to introduce the theme as:

1. A way you use to improve yourself, and that would be really helpful to everyone (like: people really have to remember to tell themselves they did a good work, we only seem to bash ourselves when we don't).
2. A way to make communication more straightforward, honest and positive, that you think is a good way to make sure a relationship works (like: I really like to be sure people know I appreciate what they do for me, or if I notice them being kind or are doing something positive for themselves).

When they have a good sense of how you feel about such subjects, you could try showing them the lecture and ask them what they think about it. The more time they had to get used to how you think about positive feedbacks and to build trust toward you the better.

Also: the average person seems to be 100% against the idea of shaping behaviour and providing reinforcements, but 100% for showing appreciation and providing positive feedback, the term and frame used really makes a world of difference even if you are describing the same process, applied to the same goals and with the same methods.

Hmmm. That's an interesting thought. In part I gave it this title to get responses, because responses improve my communications skills. But also I had no regular word for testing someone on a date. The concept of shittesting probably taught me that testing people was possible. But I probably would have figured it out from signaling theory.

As an aside, for a woman who shittests in the classic sense, are you saying that the behavior is not selfishly instrumentally rational (SIR)? I would still argue that it is, but am very unconfident.