Reports are coming in that the T1A has about 80 lumens on high, see Seans review...
Sean's review says 81 lumens; I assume he used an integrating sphere or home-made equivalent?
Doing wall and ceiling bounce tests and comparing my T1A to my Ra Clicky (supposedly calibrated to 120 lumens on high), the T1A has about 55% of that output, which would be roughly 66 lumens. That measurement technique is admittedly primitive, so it might meet the spec of 70 lumens.
Maybe my T1A is a little weak, but visually there would be no litteral difference between 66 or 80 lumens. It takes a 30% lumen increase to be visually significant. Therefore your point is valid -- the main cause of the T1A "weak" output is the floody beam design, not the lumen output.
However they should be able to get 100 out-the-front lumens and stay within thermal limits, since other small lights do.
Boosting output from 70 to 100 lumens plus reshaping the beam to be a little less floody would collectively make a big difference. Since it's a variable output light the user would still have the option to run at lower levels.
I laud Surefire for having the guts to make flood-oriented lights, vs going for a narrow beam to produce higher lux numbers for benchmark tests. However with the T1A in my opinion they went too far. They should have kept the approx. beam design of the original Titan.
The orig. Titan, U2, HDS, Ra, etc. illustrate it's possible to have a general-purpose beam, thus avoiding a "one trick pony" beam design.