Ok, honest question for everybody, on an action scale of one to ten, where one is super slow old fiberglass and ten is Sage Method fast, where do you put the Radian and One? I'll start, I think my Winston WT is about a 2.5, my Scott G a 4.0, my Sage SP was about a 5.0 and my Radian would be an 8.5 compared to a 9.0 for the Sage One.
Numbers are not my thing and though I applauded Orvis's initial effort to create a flex rating system, it has not worked out. There are so few worthwhile generalities regarding material and action, noodles and stiff sticks rods are more design than material. I will try to interpret your content though. Early Scott graphites...progenitors to "G's", now interpreted as medium where surprisingly fast compared to say Far&Fine in 1979. Then Orvis introduced "Western" and they were faster and had more power than Scotts and also Boron/Graphite that are among the stiffest rods ever made; that was circa 1986. Sage came out with RPL around that same time, they were fast and powerful but not as stiff and heavy ad the Orvis B/G but they did eclipse both the Scotts and Orvis Westerns in outright performance and ruled the World until Loomis introduced GLX designed by Steve Rajeff. These were not as fast as the Sage but lighter and more communicative and a game changer within the industry. That was about '92 and a year or two later Sage responded with medium to medium fast SP and fast SP+. By then, Scott's Harry Wilson was gone and Orvis had moved on to dog beds and Barbour jackets. Winston was building medium action rods that were loved in shorter lengths and lighter line weights and they evolved in the WT's and when Loomis built their blanks for them they were very good but limited to trout and the World of fly fishing was growing fast after the Movie. But GLX set us all on a path and new designs under new names began to proliferate. As the Century turned fast and light was the mantra...fragile but brilliant Redington NTi "Nanos" ruled the roost for about a minuet and, coming into his own, Scott's Bartchi was coming out with quicker GLX-like rods and Sage came out with XP. Fly fishing was no longer totally trout-centric and the salt, tropics and international destinations abounded demanding more performance. The aero-space industry took some big leaps during Space Shuttle development which has only accelerated and new, lighter, stronger matrixes have lead to today's thin walled, narrow diameter, stronger than ever blanks making actions as slow as Circa to as fast as Method a pleasure to fish.
On an imaginary scale of 1 to 10 which reveals nothing about taper or performance just rate of recovery, I'll put your WT around 4, quicker than Circa or some Orvis Superfines, Scott G's and Sage SP in the 5 to 6 area having more low end than the WT, H2 tip-flex (the mid-flex are too stiff tipped and weak in the middle, a bad feel) 6 to 7, Radian and Zenith 8 with the Radian having a softer tip and the Zenith a little more butt, Loomis NRX is a 9 with ONE at 9.5 and Method deserves a 10.
This rate of recovery is relevant but does not tell that much about the character of these rods and how it relates to casting and fishing but this is my stab at your question. For example; as you struggled to decide between Radian and ONE in 5-weight, I see these as dramatically different rods. ONE has one of the quickest recovering tips among all fly rods optimal for very tight loops and extreme in-air and on-water line manipulation and Radian has a softer tip than even Loomis NRX. Both recover well though with little oscillation but Radian then goes normal while NRX tapers out into extreme power. Zenith blends the attribute of both with plenty of low end power a reasonably soft tip but not as exaggerated as NRX or especially Radian tapering more gradually into its power reserve than NRX but faster than Radian. Lots of quality options here and an angler really has to go out and fish these fine rods to see how they are additive to your preferred techniques and applicable to the environments you frequent. Some of these rods are intentionally easy to access while others are demanding and require focused engagement. Man, are we fortunate to have these great options.