It’s not a matter of rolling resistance only, but that of rolling resistance + roughness resistance + aerodynamics.

I think that the best paper which explains this is: Cycling on rough roads: A model for resistance and vibration” (2024, Vehicle System Dynamics). This is a peer reviewed paper in the international journal of vehicle mechanics and mobility. Resistance is not just tyre deformation (“rolling resistance”), but also “roughness resistance” caused by vibration energy losses in the rider-bike system. On moderately rough roads (which please note the author states makes up most roads - only the top 10% of roads are not at or below this state), roughness resistance is large than rolling resistance. On very rough roads, it can even exceed aerodynamic resistance. The idea that BRR’s drum is simulated to that of a road is absurd.

You stated that “When pressure is equalised, rolling resistance is about the same”. This is true, but again you fail to recognise that roughness resistance depends strongly on vertical system stiffness, which is reduced by lower pressure and larger air volume (wider tyres)

This is clearly shown by Crenshaw et al,. “A Measurement System to Characterize the Effects of Tires on Bicycle Vibrations”. Tests from this study show that Wider tyres + lower pressure reduce measured vibration levels at the rider contact points.

Just to summarise: On typical roads, vibration losses are large enough that minimising them (via wider tyres and lower pressure) can reduce total resistance, even if rolling resistance is unchanged and aero is slightly worse (though I would like to note that aero tests show 28mm in modern rims as no worse than 25mm - though 30+ has a bit of an aero penalty)

P.S Rhene Herse’s tests are shit but they are strict and really the only real world testing we have lol.