hdtvguy I do feel for you and wouldn't normally comment on support issues, simply because without the timeline and all of the data to hand any view is subjective, it being difficult to correlate and provide a balanced view of what went right / wrong.
However I have to say your use case is somewhat unique and is actually outside of the design scope of remote copy today, like it or not it was never actually designed as a replacement for a backup solution. The fact that you can knock up a working remote backup with scripting doesn't make it a qualified or fully tested solution, if it were there'd probably be a separate license for it
Snapshot only based backup has always had scalability issues on every platform I've worked on, even good ol Netapp where their go to market is snap and replicate everything. So whether you like it or not you're implementation does appear to have some bleeding edge features and as such is likely to uncover limitations that are outside of the standard scope for remote copy testing.