For sure, measuring in that area is sketchy at best, but if the measurements are close, it looks like the gap is now .06mm bigger than it was after I first installed the pulley, and again, as you said, it appears to have "shrunk" .04mm from the initial installation.

Like you said, measurements that incremental are of little consequence, but I did it because I didnt like having the gap being smaller than Code 3's spec's after the pulley "settled in". I assume there cant be a gap of less than .2mm because of heat expansion, or pulley spring fatigue, whether the SC clutch spins freely or not.
As I said, my SC clutch DID spin nicely when the car was off, and even with the shorter gap, I could stop the SC clutch with my bare hand **when the engine was running**.

(**NOTE!!**-- I DO NOT recommended trying to stop the SC clutch while the engine is running with a bare hand!!
I should NOT have tried doing that!!).

 

I don't think that it's my intercooler pump as I changed it out with a new one over a year ago. I remember what the car felt like when the old one went out; it had like no power after about 10-15 minutes of driving.

It would be interesting to see the page about the clutch/pulley system in the tech manual.

 

I do not think that there should be a noticeable change in the clearance from "settling in", the dimension should stay constant.

Any difference in the settings due to heat expansion should be negligible.

There should be no change in the setting dimension due to spring fatigue, there is but that is the fault of the spring material. It is this fatigue that causes the failures and damage.

The gap should be between .30 and .50 mm (.012 to .020")

It is very dangerous to try and stop the SC rotor, if your hand got jammed in the gap you would be in serious trouble, who would stop the motor so you can release your hand?

 

Information from the Convertible and Supercharger Engine Update book from the DCA.