Any insinuations were unintended; and I certainly recognize dfarm's indifference on this subject. However, I'm familiar with many types and brands of adjuvants, and was simply curious why one particular brand was deemed more suitable than others.
Having worked with imazapyr since its registration in the late 80's (originally known as Arsenal), I've noted that this herbicide chemistry usually performs quite well with a variety of MSO adjuvants; granted, possibly better with some brands more so than others, depending on the targeted weed-specie.
With imazapyr, a faster visual-response doesn't necessarily benefit this herbicide's mode-of-action (ALS inhibition). Although other herbicides and/or adjuvants may provide faster visual responses, the "long-term" outcome of such treatments may be of lesser benefit in comparison to treatments that perform relatively slowly.
Personally, I encourage adding a high-quality MSO adjuvant to ALL imazapyr treatments; specifically one that miximizes leaf-cuticle infiltration while retarding spray-deposition evaporation and avoiding leaf-tissue damage/dessication. In some instances, MSO/organo-silicone "combo-adjuvants" are preferable when treating weeds that possess hairy or extra-waxy leaf-surfaces.
Due to my business affiliation, I intentionally refrain from recommending specific brands within this forum - since doing so would convey a self-interest bias. However, your brand-name reference certainly doesn't fall within this category.
Nevertheless, if you stay aboard this forum long enough (that's an invitation, btw
), you might be surprised at the commercially-motivated posts that pop up from time to time.