The printout shows it, but is ~.08% off from 100%, which I assume is the Mg peak. But its a pretty big swing to go from no Tungsten to .106% Tungsten. I'm inclined to believe its a misread due to sandpaper or the coating (tungsten carbide coating on aluminum is very much a thing).
I know metallography is expensive, but its weird to me to have such cool gizmo for XRF and to have a lab do such analysis and not do something simple like hardness testing. That is cheap and fast. Well, fast anyway. I can't comment on lab larbor costs.
Instead of a lab, hitting up your local university materials lab for a grad student to do a quick hardness test and tensile testing would give very nice information and a basic guess as to type of material. XRD would also be more accurate than XRF I think, with proper preparation. Also, you would never test the cases as-is. The structural variable is small but important. A flat sample is better.
In general, alloy design is an extremely high dimensional problem. You have composition, the forming processes, and heat treatments which all can profoundly affect the properties of the finished product. It's only since the fifties or so that we've really started to understand the internal structures of metals and how they affect properties like strength, and there are many open questions yet.
[1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11661-008-9593-3 [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_hardening
We probably spent as much time studying ferrous alloys as we did on Aluminium, Titanium, Copper and Nickel combined.
That said I suspect the reason is likely patent related. Metallurgy is not a new field but Aluminium alloying is relatively new wasn't really until after WW2. Alot of industrial research tends to be locked away behind patents.
General hardening is no problem. The challenge is when a company needs a very specific hardness. There is a fair amount of trial and error with the heat treater (at least at first) before they get it right.