Now I see that we have "data" but it appears to be compromised.
As I've explained before...
My aim was to explore, specifically to the non-scientific/academic community, what problems P1 was intending to solve, what general methodology they used, and what our (DT's) real-world testing showed about whether they were successful.
I started the article by explaining it would not contain scientific spectral charts, and that the charts I showed were illustrative and not to be taken literally. Quote "This will include illustrations of spectral transmission that are meant as a learning aid; these are crudely drawn and exaggerate differences to make them easier to consume, and should not be taken literally..."
Erik then proceeded to take the charts literally and judge them as if they were scientific spectral charts. Unsurprisingly he found them lacking.
It's like I posted the below explanation of precision vs accuracy for non statisticians and got the feedback that "the size of the holes were not representative of the hole of any bow and arrow, and the dispersion pattern is not reflective of a standard bowsman; here look at these forensic analysis".
There is only so much I can do. Fortunately in the real world, away from the internet forums, I've had very consistently positive feedback. By this I mean that people who read the article and then rented/tried/purchased the Trichromatic said it accurately reflected in advance the experience their own testing later provided.
Want lab measurements of the Trichromatic vs standard back? We're glad to arrange use of both for you to do so and share the results however you want.
Don't like the word-content of my article? I take no personal offense; download the raws we made available and make your own comparisons, or come play with a Trichromatic and make up your own mind.
Want a layman's explanation of why, how, and to what level of success the Trichromatic aimed to improve the color available to photographers? Then I (in my biased opinion) think my article did a decent job of that.