If you are concerned about the stresses at the ends where the torque load is applied differing from the classical torque equations, then you are correct.
The classical St Venant torsion solution assumes the torque is applied to the flat ends of the cylinder as shear tractions, whereas in most real shafts in torsion see the load applied as contact (perpendicular) tractions via a key or splines. So the torsion equations we are taught in undergrad
are really only valid some distance away from where the loads are applied.
If you are concerned about the stiffness, then I would consider neglecting the length of tube under the splined hub (of the rocker arm) to be a reasonable first approximation - the stiffness of the hub will be significantly higher than that of the tube.
I've seen some work on bending of beams (not entirely applicable but a okay for analogy) that modeled the geometric effects of the loading devices and compared it to the classical Euler-Bernoulli bending equations. It showed that for span / thickness ratios of less than 4:1 the shear stress distribution was only in agreement with the analytical prediction (parabolic distribution) at mid way between the central load and outside support.
I am not familiar with the length / radius ratios used for torsion bars with rocker arms. Could you try to include some adjustability for length of the bar /tube under torque so you can fine tune stiffness?