STARTLING CONCLUSION
After reading this entire thread, and consulting ALL the web sites and texts mentioned, I have come to the following conclusion: I still don't know the answer to Cincinnati Kid's question!
Don, it does appear that Griffin's and the wizard's charts disagree. My vote goes to Griffin, given the vaguaries associated with pair splitting algorithms. Wong's Appendix E also concurs with Griffin that the only time it's basic to split 99 v A is with 1D H17 DAS.
BUT, I can't use Wong to confirm because there is a mistake in Wong's logic on pair splitting! On p. 300 of Professional Blackjack Wong writes "If splitting is the best way to play a pair, the tables will say so no matter whether the calculations assume no replits, unlimited resplits, or something in between." This might be true, but it isn't tautological, as Wong seems to assume. Wong's tables assume no resplits. As Graenzer points out above, it's possible for splitting to be incorrect under no resplit conditions, yet become correct when resplitting is allowed.
It is true that if splitting is recommended by Wong's tables then basic strategy will also say to split, but that isn't quite the same thing! Therefore, it is just conceivable that resplitting could improve the EV for splitting 99 v A from -.193 to -.186 or more, so basic would then be to split the pair under 1D H17 NoDAS.
So, to summarize, I believe that Griffin is probably correct when he says basic is to split 99 v A ONLY with 1D H17 and DAS, and I'd say if the wizardofodds has proof to the contrary, he should come forward from behind the curtain! I also agree with MathProf that splitting 99 v A is good "counter's bs," while at the same time agreeing with Parker that standing is the risk averse way to go.
ETF