It's a rhetorical syllogism...
Person x can score well on their CFA prior to admission to a service academy.
Person y theoretically fails parts of their CFA but is admitted to the same academy and even assigned to the same company.
Both conduct the same drills, exercises for four years. (I don't think cadets go to the gym at 3 AM to catch up on their conditioning.)
Person y will most likely NOT have surpassed person x in physical capabilities in regards to specific strength exercises denoted by the CFA... They may have caught up, but really, consider the history that of the body of the initially superior physically candidate in comparison with the newly developed strengths and mass of the other...
It's theoretical, as is the whole of my argument. I did not actually poll candidates or walk the streets of Kabul scrutinizing service members.
Ok, now play with me here a second, theory is good, but we're talking real world applications, right? I honestly am curious how much experience you have had with the cadets at any of the acadmies.
Here's a few of the fallacies that I would wonder in your
theory that I would wonder about having had interactions for a pretty good deal of time with West Point cadets having grown up as an Army brat with connections to the post, cadets there, professors, alumni (not going to pretend to be able to speak of the other Academies as well despite my dad also having had housing on Annapolis and us living in Colorado Springs while he was working out of Ft Carson...just putting this out there that we have a pretty good idea of the kind of people that make it to be cadets and graduate and is a great deal of the reason I want to be there as well).
Anyways, back to the point, cadets don't all do the same exact drills that pertain to their physical fitness. Some do the bare minimum that's required of them (intermurals, PT, etc) and pass their PT tests while others are playing for Varsity sports or add in extra fitness to their daily routines (can't say how many cadets we've seen do their 5am runs just to run), etc. The point is that the bare minimum training is the same for all
theoretically, but the effort that an individual puts into them and desire that they have to better themselves will have a great affect on their physical fitness. You could be a great athlete before the Academy and do the minimum that they ask you to do to pass your PT tests and be surpassed by someone who's taken it upon themselves to train harder that may have been in lesser shape before entering the Academy.
Even if, let's go with
theory for a sec, all cadets had the same exact physical fitness regimen, there's still variables within that include the effort put in. You can coast and do the minimum or you can be 110% effort that will actually do to improve yourself or anywhere in the middle.
For your
theory to have any merit, we'd not only have to assume that cadets were having the same exact fitness routine which is not always the case, and that they were all giving the same exact effort which is a highly individualistic thing that theory really can't take into account.
I didn't even touch on the biologic component that you keep bringing up of anatomy on development during adolescent which will also play a factor as mentioned, especially in men who are coming into their full development.
Also, as a side note, if you fail 1 part of the CFA, you will not pass the entire thing, so I'm not sure where that comment came from unless you are referring to females not having to do pulls up to pass. It will be said that if a female chooses to not do 1 pull up, all admissions officers will tell you that no matter how long you hold the flex arm hang, you won't earn the same amount of points in that section of the test as if you had done a pull up. So there is the scaling there when it comes to the Whole Candidate Score that it was admissions looks at, and I would imagine that it is a red flag that would make admissions look at the overall athletic background a little closer.