You're not reading before you post. Airworthiness of the part in question and compatibility are two separate issues.
I argued that if the definitions of a minor alteration which is clearly codified in the FARs is met, than it is up to the AMT installing to determine what they are comfortable with doing.
You made an appeal to your authority - "as a 40 yr A&P and 15 year or so IA I feel"
Then you proceeded to insinuate that I was suggesting complete parts compatibility between all aircraft- "Using your logic I’d be able to use engines, props and all kinds of other things on my Mooney, because they are approved on other Mooney’s."
I never said any such thing. Once again...for changes that meet the definition of minor alterations, I think that PMAd parts with operationally identical specifications but different part numbers can be installed as a minor alteration...
"It might just possibly start with wondering why the manufacturer didn’t include your model Mooney in with the others."
There are a whole host of reasons why a model might not be included in the application list. Some times it's a simple oversight or a paperwork omission. Sometimes it's a lack of data available for a specific model. Sometimes there is a compatibility issue. In this case, perhaps it's because it would cause the battery to explode thereby blowing the airframe into pieces and causing it to plummet to the ground in a fiery mess...or...bare with me here, everything would be A'OK given per the TCDS that the components of the charging systems of each model are virtually identical save for a slightly lower capacity Alternator option on some J models...
J Model
K model