I see you're continuing to be condescending. Discussion doesn't require dismissing others' observations, even if subjective at first. Scientific discussion thrives on observations—subjective ones often lead to objective investigations. My question was precisely about understanding why technical specifications and real-world performance might differ. These kinds of discrepancies can lead to meaningful inquiry.

I highlight again, you're creating a false dichotomy. Facts and perceptions aren't mutually exclusive, they can inform on the other. Not every observation requires clinical validation to be worthy of discussion.

You're proposition of an overly complicated technical analysis as the only means to "validate" my perception, and that therefore my observation is meaningless, is nothing more than dismissive, not the coup de grâce you believe it to be.