Literally all those things you mentioned happen in static environments. Note that I said we can’t image a brain in motion, all we have for that are computer models. Sure, they’re plausible, but we can’t even agree on what crashing forces applied to the cranium look like, let alone the resultant brain movement and pressures induced. You can’t CT a brain as the head is falling. Nobody has ever drilled holes in someone’s skull and mounted pressure transducers inside the skull to truly validate the pressures during impact. All the “validation” has happened in lower fidelity domains (particularly the time domain), this is a bit like claiming that you know calculus because you can do addition really good. Every mechanical engineering student will tell you that dynamics is a different beast than statics. Fancy computer images does not the truth make.

Note that I’m not saying that a MIPS or WaveCel helmet is worse than the previous generation, I’m just pointing out that the timing in which these features appeared on the market is suspect, which causes me to suspect the “science” behind it. It is most likely that these antirotation features don’t make the helmets worse but also not any better.