Your conversion is better than mine. It reproduces the fine letter text under the image readable too.
On the other hand, your conversion also contains detail above say 120 lp/mm, a line pattern with decreasing frequency. In my view a clear example of fake detail. The test target has increasing frequency up to 200 lp/mm.
I suppose you could call it "fake detail". The data clearly shows moire, as in: an undulating pattern of increasing frequency that will change to an undulating pattern of lower frequency once NF is reached.
But I always thought of images as having a kind of "flow" for lack of a better term. In a picture of a tree for example the flow of edges goes from the stem, along the branches, to the twigs and the leaves. Or the feathers of a bird, perfectly combed and groomed. There is a certain directionality, along which the eye expects to find edges, and any deviations may even be detectable on subconscious levels. So as long as the "faked" detail at least has a reasonably correct directionality, it may improve the overall viewing experience, while at the same time improving apparent detail.
This is opposed to software that makes significant errors in relatively large detail like Canon's DPP. This creates a noisy, visible or at least detectable grid in the flow, and makes post-processing sharpening a nightmare.
Perhaps there is a more reasonable compromise for aliasing filters. Something that will allow the image reconstruction to know the directionality while at the same time not create excessive contrast edges. As a RAW converter I don't want the aliasing filter to try and cope with color-aliasing:
1) Because you can get away with a lot of softening in color information, allowing anti-aliasing in post-processing.
2) Detail errors primarily occur in the green channel, which then translate to the colorchannels.
Instead I want it to cope with the lack of continuous samples in green, as follows:
For every green pixel, you would want to sample the slightly larger area that includes part of the direct neighbors, typically a 45degr square that exactly encompasses the original green pixel. But no larger! My gut feeling tells me that would be the optimal anti-aliasing blur required. But the actual physics involved probably won't allow such sampling. I do believe that this is one of the reasons that the original Fuji Super CCD worked so well. As opposed to the new lay-out they came up with, which is not going to solve anything, and will likely introduce unwanted color artifacts. (I suspect that they will soon find all kinds of color smearing on thin dark lines against light backgrounds, as in trees against a sky, color texts on opposing color background…)