The idea of precision ground stones has always seemed a bit weird to me. AIUI, the idea is to use them to remove any dings from a flat surface. But suppose your table has a typical ding that has created a small crater and raised a bit of metal. As soon as the stone encounters that raised bit, the leading edge is going to rise up and thus only 2 or 3 points of the stone will now in contact with the surface. I realize that the raised bit is one of those points of contact and that the idea is to abrade it back down level with the rest of the 'flat' surface. But the other point or points of contact is likely at the far end of the stone and aren't we now trying to dish out that area?
Plus, most of us have machines with a bit of wear in them. Maybe also a slight bow, twist or warp. Stoning is not going to fix those issues and again the stones may not be in full contact in various spots on the 'flat' surface. Even more, metal is actually pretty flexible. The local pressure of stoning could actually be deflecting the surface a few tenths (or more?). Especially, say, out on the unsupported ends of a milling machine table.
All I'm trying to say is that I don't see how much more precision one actually gets from ground stones v. unground stones (that have been rubbed together to try to keep them flat-ish). Am I being mulish?
Craig