I have not.
This brings up the old "let's fix a problem that should (but does not) exist" issue: to what extent should we design systems and their components for problems that in theory should exist but in practice never occur?
I am reminded of the many unnecessary replacements of filter capacitors in Neumann NG power supplies by "techs" not familiar with the model - the kind of tech who assumes electrolyte leaking out of the capacitors' vent holes in NG supplies indicates that they need to be replaced...
Or the "tech" who sees a crack in the plastic of the original blue rectifier of NU67 power supplies and assumes it's shot and must be replaced...
Or the "tech" who replaces all capacitors in mics, insisting a "recap" is in order...
In these instances and in many more, the level of the tech's experience, rather than broad theoretical ideas determine whether repairs are really needed. That's why the term "tech" sometimes warrants quotation marks.
One could even argue that applying a more rigorous scientific approach, rather than acting on "what we generally know to be true" would lead to the same conclusion (to act or not) as that of extensive experience alone*: "recapping" (i.e. replacing capacitors) of studio consoles makes sense. Components deteriorate from stress inflicted by heat cycling, current flowing through them, etc. It makes less or no sense to periodically replace components that are un-stressed and idling, with minimal current flowing through them (microphones).
Then there is the 800-pound gorilla in the room: a tech who sees a "problem" as justification to make money (subject for another thread).
*Hyundai records even the smallest technical or cosmetic flaw detected during final inspections off the assembly line: corrections are implemented immediately that benefit all future cars coming down the line. The practical augments, sometimes even drives, the theoretical.