It's kind of rude to interrupt this thread ever more so since i'm mentioned but i feel some clarity would help.....
@Funky Monkey, I worked at your parent company Stapelton's tyres for 25yrs at head office Watford and after going my own way i found myself training your instructors and some of my old area managers!!
Anyway as you know they bought Kwick-Fit and have adopted the vision "tracking" is a thing of the past hence the Hunter acquisitions..... Well having it and knowing how to drive it are very different things.
Now your only as good as your training and you read really keen to do a good job "stick with that attitude" but there's a long way to go and i'm sorry to say in house the team don't have a clue above basic.
Quick example because i don't want to highjack the tread..... I was training your instructors but not knowing their level of knowledge i start with a simple question? "Tracking", front wheel alignment, what's it for? Some smug answers come back "to stop the tyres wearing"..... Um no i asked what's it for? Why is FWD cars front toe position different to RWD cars? Why does wheel size matter? Oh at the most simple of angles they are stumped .
Back on topic
The IS200/ 300/ SC issue is the castor position? In it's natural position it's unremarkable and not directly adjustable but it can be adjusted indirectly..... Here's where it gets a bit dirty? The problem we have is front camber migration. The actual listed camber positions are very low -21' stock, -30 sport so nothing to drastic there but the low castor and camber migration during yaw, or lock shall we say allows the outer wheel to lean to far negative. I wrote a new front camber position that during adjustment violates the toe which in turn when corrected moves the castor...... Point to note is no cars steering pivotal points are at right angles so any adjustment/ correction will be reflected.