Sometimes it's fun to think about these kind of things.
However, with these C.A.P. ("Computer Assisted Protection" according to Head's 1986 catalogue schtick; the cheezy name - er, acronym - stuck and is still sticking tenaciously to tennis nerds everywhere today) grommet systems, the idea was to protect the strings and edges of the frames from court rash. When they first came out (in 1986, on the TXP), I thought they were a heavy-handed solution (what player is really going to scrape anything between the 3 and 9 o'clock positions on the frame?), and bloody annoying (they make a "tweet" sound as the racket is swung). And not all stringers like them, or can pull fatter strings (16 or 15L) through the slots as they finish and the strip "clams down."
Modern tennis nerds love them because they add weight to rackets that probably start out lighter than they ought to be for anyone under age 55 / over USTA rating 3.0. OK, fine, but Head designed them sized to wrap around the contours of a fairly thin-width beam: 18mm, in the case of the PC600 and its variants. I suppose one could chop one up to fit into a PS85, but it's a bit thinner in beam, isnt it, and the plastic would stick out. Wider beamed rackets (just about everything else available in the world) would cause problems, as the string pulls would cause the clam action and the fluted outer edges flattening against the beam would compound this phenomenon. And who knows how deep the channel on the subject frame is, compared to the clearance on the Head grommet? And no matter how you it pans out functionally, it'd look positively ghetto.
If ya gotta, install the generic individual hole grommets and some head protection tape. But, to address the question you posed in the title of this thread, the proof is in the pudding. Find the grommet, chop it up, and test your hypothesis. You'll be the first with definitive proof as to whether you are that guy Dostoevsky was writing about or not.