Well, I read everything.
30-10-7 is pretty darned aggressive especially when injected into the soil profile, I wouldn't advise it here and it might even burn a few natives.
I cannot see how the soil itself is improved? I cannot see if there's any organic matter going in there. As far as plants building up defences I'd debate that point till no tomorrow.
Trees will sacrifice defence over growth every time, more nutrient availability means more growth, could also lead to over extended and more likely to fail trees ... could grow till they break.
It's one thing to pitch an angle that suggests the fertilizer replaces what's natural in a forest, that's some tricky snake oil there. Been to a forest? Oh, there's mulch not lawn, there's diversity, there's grafting and shelter with fauna (critters) all working together. So now we chemically duplicate the forests soil nutrient content, forget all the other things that go on in a forest and give it to our urban trees. Interesting, I'd like to see the long term repercussions of this and I certainly wouldn't trust any of the manufacturers data on it.
These ain't veggie crops or beans, we're talking trees here, that can fail and kill you. Trees that get cut, weed whacked, compacted etc and defence is a critical component, so is trying to create some natural sustenance such as mulch, water, decompaction, beneficial microrhizae etc.
Sorry mate, I aint sold, the warning bells are going off. Dont like the one size fits all approach either.
