Sorry PJ, I didn't mean that last response to sound dismissive, but it did strike me as a bit of a rhetorical question.(posted 8562 days ago)
To take your points one at a time:
1)Sure, it's possible to analyse any chemical substance, but the facilities and expertise required to do so accurately are beyond most individuals means. Any organisation that reverse engineers a commercial product is unlikely to admit to it by making their findings public.
2)I think that, at one time, Kodak recommended the 2 bath Beutler developer for getting normal contrast with Technical pan. This may be origin of the 2 bath formula you were thinking of.
3)Splitting a developer into two baths, without modifying the formula, effectively gives you a different developer.
The developing agent available is limited to the amount that can be absorbed by the emulsion in the first bath, giving low maximum film density, and therefore turning the developer into a 'compensating' type. Because of this emulsion carry over, the characteristic of the developer will change with film type, and possibly format. The net result is the same as if the quantity of developing agent was only a fraction of the original formula, and the two bath version will give nothing like the same tonality or film speed of the original.I hope this explains why I found it a rather curious request to begin with.