TIA222H #7.6.2 refers to "ultimate breaking strength" of a guy cable.
The next clause (7.6.2.1) relates to the ultimate breaking strength as the "manufacturer's rated breaking strength of the guy".

Is it reasonable/defensible to calculate the ultimate breaking strength as the product of the tensile strength grade of the wires and the effective area of the cable? I ask because I know of one leading international mast software program which does this, and thus reports strengths ~25% greater than if the partial safety factor phi-g were applied to the Minimum Breaking Force (which of course is a statistical derivative from a series of cable tests, not a theoretical ultimate strength). That software does not permit input of an MBL directly.

Did the writers of TIA222H intend this interpretation? It seems to me that they did intend it, after all a mast design's partial safety factors aggregate to around 2.5 to 3 (depending upon risk categorisation), so applying these to a theoretical breaking strength does not seem unduly risky. And if the code-writers had wanted us to use the much more commonly used MBF (or MBL) then surely they 'd have said so.
Thoughts please?