My belief & experience is that the ‘clutch release thrust surface’ requires materials suitable for the load which is dynamic in terms of rotation (& vibration!) & static in the thrust, or load.
Initially, what Innocenti did was have ‘hard on hard’ with the clutch centre thimble pushed by the cam.
Later they had ‘bearing surface on hard’ with the clutch centre pad pushed by the bronze alloy pad.
As a point of reference, I doubt the change came about to improve performance but almost certainly through cost saving.
It is unlikely that the older set up (with the clutch centre having a spindle that fitted into the bored gear clusters of the day) could be bettered by the subsequent changes, other than from the perspective of cost in manufacture.
So my own, somewhat cynical belief, is that the mechanics of the clutch disengagement is best if the process avoids the inner clutch tipping in anyway relative to the outer clutch.
The bronze alloy pad utilised in the GP cover is probably the second best choice.
Back to your dilemma, the surface depicted (nipple cut off) should ideally have been a bit flatter & smoother than it appears. However, despite it only being about as hard as mild steel, it is still a harder surface than the pad, so the pad will be the item most likely to wear.
If I were you, & presuming you have since finished the rebuild, I would run it as it is but look out for a hardened centre from a motorcycle clutch that can be persuaded to fit into your inner clutch centre to give you a better surface as well as avoid the likelihood of tipping that I’ve tried to explain. Something along the lines of the item I have included photos of here. I apologise for the poor quality but I hope you get my drift in trying to help….
DSCN3559.JPG
DSCN3558.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.