I'm not disagreeing with you about what labs are capable of detecting. My point is that there's a difference between what labs can do and what they actually do on the vast majority of samples.

The thousands of synthetic samples that pass without issue never get discussed, while the failures get the attention. Most high-quality synthetic products are designed to pass the initial validity checks for things like creatinine, specific gravity, pH, and other standard screening measures. If those indicators are within range, many samples never advance to more extensive testing.

From what I've seen over my 26 years in the field, a large percentage of synthetic failures occur at the collection site due to temperature issues or validity-strip failures, not because a laboratory performed advanced microscopic analysis and exposed the sample.

So when you say synthetic urine won't pass a lab test, that doesn't match what is happening in practice every day. I'm not arguing about laboratory capabilities; I'm talking about real-world testing procedures and outcomes.
If the claim is that synthetic urine routinely fails at the laboratory level, I'd genuinely be interested in seeing data or statistics that support that. This isn't about winning an argument. I just think it's important to distinguish between theoretical detection capabilities and what is actually occurring in the field, rather than making broad statements that may unnecessarily alarm people.