Funny thing about “pesaq hamequbal”. In RMF says in OC 2:100 that we should hold like the AhS on the matter in question, because he was the poseiq. The teshuvos in that volume were all written some time after the Holocaust through the early 1960s. However, in OC vol 5, the ps questions in the late 1970s or '80s, RMF wrote a teshuvah found in OC 5:13.9 that ruled like the MB “since these later generations accepted the MB as Maran on matters of OC.”
Sounds to me like RMF originally considered the AhS the more authoritative of the two, until he felt Kelal Yisrael spoke, and he had to change his position. Which is the way things look on the street. For example, there are two editions of the AhS with footnotes describing pisqei MB. I have never seen the reverse on the bottom of a MB.
So my impression is more like tRMF’s more like that piece of the description of RHS’s position.
But RHS isn’t a fan of the AhS either.
I don’t think his position is maintainable by his students. This is the same gadol who said one cannot pasqen on one matter without having broad knowledge of all of halakhah. Because it’s all interconnected. (Ask RJR, not me, where he says this – I heard it in a shiur on a link in Audio Roundup.)
There would be no LORs that way.
As noted in the past, there are many cases where the CC didn’t hold like the Mishnah Berurah. And RSM z"l argued (v9n55, only on the original archive) that it wasn’t even meant as a code to begin with, but as a collection of acharonim that post-date the nosei keilim in the SA, to help the LOR work through pesaqim using sources that then weren’t in most rabbi’s libraries.
See Textualism and the Mishnah Berurah for my summary of his position. There are embellishments of my own, but RSM agreed with them.