My comment was in consideration of other optical techniques to achieve same (have been experimenting with nonlinear optics and additive manufacturing processes to understand scope of what they can do, mostly for evaluating new business opportunities at nano scale). I've been wondering if we'll always grinding/polishing optics, or, if like with "3D printing", other means of fabrication might displace them. Currently semiconductor processing have made them "accessible".
I have already mapped the bad areas. It is easy to do by just by placing the schmidt side against my optical flat. There are a couple of pictures in the thread in the ATM forum that shows this. Here is a picture as well. The areas from 10 to 11 and 1 to 2 o'clock in the image are what the curve should look like so those are a section of a "good" area. There are 4 high areas on my plate that are around 90 degrees apart.
You're showing the "waves"/"ripples" at the contact zone with the plate (and perhaps the center). By pressing one can "see" other zones when they are brought into contact. The overall pattern, not just the given point contact was what I was referring to.
As a 2D map of all of these, one could selectively etch/mill the "lands" that stick out. This would leave in place the existing Schmidt curve largely intact. The residual artifacts of the process would be over/under adjacent "sleeks" that would polish out quickly with the petal lap that would refine/enhance the desired curve.
Same technique might make optical refinement a more common, cheaper, quicker, deterministic means to fix poor optics. Per rolo's "image degrading corrector", it might give customers a stronger case to insist vendors "fix their broken optics", where they could automate, recoat, and return to customer as warranty repair.