Does:
wound channel + ballistic pressure wave = incapacitation
OR
wound channel x ballistic pressure wave = incapacitation
OR
wound channel and/or ballistic wave pressure = incapacitation
AND THEREFORE
9mm or .357 Sig or .45ACP = incapcitation equally well

Title:
Relative incapacitation contributions of pressure wave and wound channel in the Marshall and Sanow data set , M Courtney, A Courtney, (2007).

Abstract:
The Marshall and Sanow data set is the largest and most comprehensive data set available quantifying handgun bullet effectiveness in humans. This article presents an empirical model for relative incapacitation probability in humans hit in the thoracic cavity by handgun bullets. The model is constructed by employing the hypothesis that the wound channel and ballistic pressure wave effects each have an associated independent probability of incapacitation. Combining models for these two independent probabilities using the elementary rules of probability and performing a least-squares fit to the Marshall and Sanow data provides an empirical model with only two adjustable parameters for modeling bullet effectiveness with a standard error of 5.6% and a correlation coefficient R = 0.939. This supports the hypothesis that wound channel and pressure wave effects are independent (within the experimental error), and it also allows assignment of the relative contribution of each effect for a given handgun load. This model also gives the expected limiting behavior in the cases of very small and very large variables (wound channel and pressure wave), as well as for incapacitation by rifle and shotgun projectiles.

http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org/ballistics.htm

These scientists have taken advantage of hundreds of deer volunteering to participate in their outdoor ballistics labratory experiments providing data aquired from examples of bullets impacting living bone & flesh.

Science is theory which has endured peer review and has produced repeatable and predictable results. Peer review does not seem destined to produce consensus in terminal ballistics debates.

So as long as people who are much smarter and experienced than me wish to continue debating all the different scientific approaches as to just how incapacitation is caused, and what bullet is better capable of producing the most rapid incapacitation possible at the ultimate optimum velocity, I will just continue to train in a safe manner. That said, it is interesting to witness brilliant people formulate and present ballisitcs theory.

Self composure and accuracy in time of crisis will be my most beneficial course of study.

Courtney's work has been, shall we say, seriously derided among many in the terminal ballistic world. See, e.g., here.

Perhaps some day, Courtney will be declared a genius far ahead of his time. But that day is not today, at least as far as the mainstream firearms world is concerned.

In the meantime, smart money is on picking something from DocGKR's list and leaving it at that.

All the academic study is good, and I applaud those with more free time on their hands than I have.

The problem is that none of those theories listed in the initial post actually hold any real world relevence. Projectiles ripping and tearing through vital organs causing rapid blood loss, and/or CNS shut down = incapacitation.

Theories are all well and good, but that is what they are: Theories. They give an idea of what could/should happen with a given projectile at a given velocity, but what these theories don't take into account is the human factor. People have a tendency to do unexpected, and often times weird shit when they get shot. Apparently no one told them what they were supposed to do when Bullet X entered their lung, or Bullet Y entered their skull.................