Bill,
Spectacular finish on this model, as per your usual high standard, no doubt!
I hope you don't mind if I weigh in on something however. This may be just a matter of Semantics to some, but I think that although it is small, it might be an important distinction?
I've seen you use what you call the "Dot Filter" process on several of your latest builds, but I think that the way you apply it is a mischaracterization of what I understand the method to be? When I learned it--which was pretty near to when it was making its breakthrough in the "Spanish Armor School" (In "Armor" magazine) so to speak , it had a very definite purpose--to use what you would normally never consider to be "Armor weathering colors" in a widely-distributed application of "dots" in order to apply nearly imperceptible hues of mostly Primary Colors to a model in order to impart a rich patina of subtle tonal variations.
Adam Wilder explained to me that this came about because Spain is such a bright, warm country ( as opposed to the :Norwegian School which uses more neutral Blacks and Whites to impart contrast, as per the longer nights/shorter days and general grayness of season) and because this was the intention of the originators--to add that warmth to their models.
However, from how I've seen you doing YOUR technique, it seems to be more of a "color modulation" in form of altering the general base color in lights and dark hues which are always more related to the model's base color? Like how on the Pz38(t) you used appropriately-related colors of Flat Sea Blue, Flat White, and Panzer Dunkelgelb. No real "contrasting" colors if you think of the Dunklegelb as imparting a "dust" hue. In contrast, the "Dot Filter" technique generally recommended to actually stay AWAY from "complimentary" hues and what you would consider "actual weathering" colors, as a matter of actual process.
Also--and this may be a small detail, but--the process was usually drawn down in stokes, and in somewhat heavier concentration more so than merely being diluted, or drawn across the model as you did on that Tiger (P) Prototype. For instance, look at the distribution, colors, and process of how I was doing it on the Hetzer;
As such, I think that what you do is more aptly within the nature of what has come to be called "Color Modulation"--albeit you DO use "dots" to effect that result.
I hope this post doesn't come across as arrogant or petty 
--genuinely, neither is the intent; I think you know that! I just think that the difference in results of what I've seen between the application of the "Dot Filter" technique as it originally started and from where it gained popularity and what you achieve ( and NOT, BY ANY MEANS (!) judging that to be any less valid, or inferior) is noteworthy enough as to warrant the distinction? Your method of subtly modulating the base color is much more subtle and in a way, "User Friendly", where as the way that "Dot Filters" was employed in "Armor" magazine where it got its real "push" was much more extreme and contrasting in its results.
Thoughts? 
Is it just a matter of Semantics? Or do you see the point that I'm trying to get across?