I have to wonder what method you used for rider positioning. No matter how tall or how short, unless a human has abnormally longer or shorter femurs or tibias, people fit onto a 72°-74° seat tube angle, in all rider heights. (and the choice within that range is more for intended purpose).

It is amusing to see you say that there was no such thing as a criterium geometry, and then, in the same breath, you state that there was, but it just didn't catch on. A criterium geometry is basically 3 differentiators with regards to a road-racing geometry: 1.a steeper head tube angle, 2.higher bottom bracket, and 3.shorter wheelbase (some models were so short, that the front tire would overlap with one's toes while turning).


The mistakes we often see on bikes, is geometry modified for the wrong reasons:
For example, on the smaller frames, we see a steepening of the seat tube angle, and a setting back of the headtube angle, to keep the top tube from being too long for the frame height while keeping the front wheel from overlapping the feet. The seat tube ends up at an uncomfortable angle, leaning the rider forward, as for in a time-trial bike. The bike is uncomfortable (justified trade-off in a 30minute-1hr time trial, but not hours-long road race or training), and more "stable" (read: slower-turning) bike, than the riders get in the larger frame sizes. The right thing to do, would be to change the wheels for 650 or even the 26" standard in the smallest of sizes. Short riders often complain that the reach is too long - that is no coincidence: look at any bike that is under 52cm, and often, you will see that top tubes start to elongate in relation to the seat tube length, as we go down in frame sizes. I've seen a 43cm with a 50cm top tube (and that was a 650 model).