You're never going to get any kind of accurate reading using a wad of clay that big.

Also, there is no direct correlation between valve to piston clearance and power.
Just because a bigger cam will fit doesn't mean it will increase the power output.
If bigger was always better, then no one could have ever "over cammed" an engine.

What's the lift?
Are the pistons way down in the hole?
Are you sure your put the cam in right?
If you degreed it did you use the 2nd lifter not the 1st cause that's an exhaust lifter.

Yes cam was degreed piston are .019 in the hole had my machinist install it 693 lift

Dwayne I agree to Big of Clay

The cam lobe can and does make a bunch of differences on P to V clearances I've seen Ma Mopar brand small cams barely fit or need notching the pistons to get the minimum P to V that big SS solid roller cam fit a lot better and we didn't need to notch the pistons to get the minum clearances
I sold a customer a old Isky RR602 solid roller cam for a mild street motor, those lobes took forever to get to .050 lifter rise
The newer cams open the valves a lot quicker with more lift than the old ones did

Okay my buddy came by and with a extra set of eyes we notice a couple of problems like rocker arm needs clearance to clear the retainers. Also valves doesn't seem to be opening all the way...... why do we do this to ourselves..lol

if the rocker arm needs clearance, and the valves aren't opening all the way, are there some bent/damaged parts in there now ?

With your springs and rockers, I don't see how you could end up with a situation where you have a retainer to rocker clearance issue, and a problem where you're not seeing full lift at the valves.
HS rockers on EZ heads and 1.55 springs usually have ample room between the retainers and rockers.

I recently had a customer with the same issue on some SR heads, which have the same ample clearance as EZ heads.
It would appear that some "older" HS rockers(mine are 22 years old, and they don't have this problem) have less of a relief cut in them for spring clearance.
I had him send me some pics of his rockers, which he bought used so we don't know how old they are, and the spring relief cuts were much shallower than on my HS rockers.

If your valves are longer than called for that will
bring the tip of the valve(and retainers) closer to
the rockers...but you should see that on the tip of
the valve stem and rocker alignment

Just had the heads freshened up with New valves installed

Here's a couple of pics

Aaahhh, okay....... Mystery solved.
I thought you had HS rockers. Those look like Hughes rockers, which have less clearance than the HS rockers.
"Usually" you can run -.050 locks with titanium retainers and the 943 springs to get at 1.900 installed height on those heads and still have enough height for a shim under the spring. The -.050 locks would give you the clearance you need, but you'd need to pull out .050(ish) worth of shim to use them.
If you have spring cups though, that may not be an option.

You can also "gently relieve" the rockers to make some more room, and the B3 stuff is another option.
Keep in mind the B3 kit will most likely require longer pushrods.
The cheapest/easiest thing at this point is to lightly clearance the rockers. It doesn't look like they need hardly any clearancing to be usable.

If you're checking for full lift with full spring pressure, my experience has been that there is a fair amount of flex in those rockers. I would think the zero lash net lift would be somewhere around .660-.670 with your .460 lobe cam and 1.5 hughes rockers.