I read that article, and it mentions that the rating applies to prints under glass. So whatever the value of the rating, it applies only to that condition, and I'd ask Mark MHG to confirm whether with glass the rating proposed (using the WIR standard) in that article could apply for EPLPP and EEFP.
Well, my bad...when I said "no way" for EEF and Premium luster on 200 year display rating, I did have in mind the AaI&A Conservation Display Criteria which keeps the allowable changes to "little or no noticeable" visually observed change under "single stimulus" viewing condition (i.e, the print is being judged by itself without a control print in perfect condition sitting right beside it). EEF won't make it because of the OBA burnout and additional media yellowing that you might be able to avoid under full UV blocking glazing or ample dark storage, but the UV block or ample dark storage isn't part of that WIR prediction, and anyway, it would defeat the visual magic of EEF's bright white appearance right on day one if UV block glazing were used. Premium Luster, has a bit of a different problem. Even though it has relatively low OBA content, it won't make it that long due the post exposure dark staining phenomenon I described earlier. More research is needed into how much initial light exposure kicks off this dark storage problem, but it's certainly far far less than 400 megalux hours of pre-exposure prior to dark storage (400 megalux hours is how much light exposure would be needed to reach the WIR 200+ display year rating).
AaI&A's Conservation display rating (CDR) is indeed a pretty tough standard, far tougher than the WIR criteria set, for the allowable amount of measurable fade, but IMHO, it is more appropriate for fine art prints. Some of today's pigmented ink/stable-media-white point systems do very well when rated against this AaI&A CDR set of criteria, so that's the best argument I can give for industry critics who might argue it's unrealistic. I anticipate the P600's UCHD ink set combined with a wise media choice is indeed going to turn in some impressive results, but we need to do the test
In contrast, WIR criteria were derived for consumer photos, so sure, there will be "acceptable" 200 year prints around in the future, but with those more liberal fade/discoloration tolerances, printmakers don't need expensive cotton rag papers and pigmented inks to have functional human-readable images a hundred or two hundred years into the future. Even acid-choked lignin-filled Newsprint and cheap litho inks will easily make it that long if kept primarily in dark storage under relatively cool and dry environmental conditions, and we also accept a large amount of visual appearance changes over the years.
Just this past weekend I was going through a shoe box full of old color photos that was given to me by another family member. The photos are color chromogenic prints dating back to the early 1960s, so some are now over 50 years old. That era of dye-based color photography is quite fugitive and would be rated very poorly even by WIR criteria. Every one of these photos has very noticeable fade, but with a little digital restoration most of the information content should be easily retrieved. I would argue that for consumer photos, the media itself serves primarily as an "image storage file" and, unlike fine prints, doesn't necessarily have much artifactual value. If we can extract useful image information content from that print 50, 100, or 200 years from now, then that consumer photo print has served its primary purpose. My wife is thrilled to see these images of her parents, brother, and grandparents in newly restored digital color. The original prints will be catalogued and stored optimally in my cold storage freezer(s) from now on, because to me, they do have remaining historic value as traditional color photos of that era even in their currently faded condition.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com 
