Normally, as Craig says, cross-referencing via two or more specs ensures that all is correct and the engine doesn't care where the dots are, as long as the cam is indexed correctly to the crank. In this case however I'd say several things don't add up re the numbers you quote:
o If the 0.050" IVO is to be 30° BTDC and the ICL 104°, then the intake duration must be 268°.
o If the EVO is 58° BBDC and the ECL is 110°, then the exhaust duration is 256°. Suspicious, in that such a 'reverse split' is unusual.
o You state: "Set straight up like this i get: 0.115"@ TDC with a 112 deg centreline. The degree wheel shows it is 12 deg retarded." This does not compute, as for the required 104° ICL it would represent only an 8° retard.
o If a lift of 0.144" @ TDC corresponds to an ICL of 106°, I'd be surprised if an additional 2° of rotation would produce the needed 0.018" more to match the 0.162" spec. Have you checked if it does?
o You state: "According to the degree wheel, it is still 3.5-4 deg retarded to what the cam maker has called for." but per the previous bullet point, it is actually only 2° R.
o The best advice is normally to "degree it in the way the manufacturer states", as non-symmetrical lobes will distort the relationship between 'centerlines' and valve open/close points, but in this case, there is a disconnect in the reported recommendations and this would not appear possible.
I suggest expanding on Craig's advice by checking 0.050" IVO/IVC and EVO/EVC and determining if max lift is exactly halfway between them. If it is, the lobes are symmetrical and you can with reasonable assurance set the ICL at 104° and forget everything else. If it is not, you'll have to decide which spec to follow and which to ignore. (BTW, obvious question: Have you tried contacting the grinder for clarification?)
Keep us posted re the resolution!
"The mental health of a company can be judged by its tolerance for Dilbert cartoons."