That data is given so for people who believe that score, SVS has been given a huge gift, equating their designs with Revel.
The research however, was published as a conference paper so not peer reviewed. No published report has duplicated it. Nor is Harman using it itself.
I think directionally it is a good measure seeing how my subjective listening tests agree with it most of the time even though I don't know that score when I am testing the speaker.
BTW, it is the height of silliness to think a preference score for a speaker can have two decimal places! The tool that gathers preference score only allows single digits:
View attachment 77096
Just because computationally you arrive at fractions, doesn't mean you use them to rate speakers.
No way is a speaker preference score accurate to 1/10th let alone 1/100th as you are quoting. The error bars themselves easily invalidate such:
View attachment 77097
You have to understand the limits of what the measurements are showing in a difficult field of predicting listener preference for tonality of a speaker. Don't be blindly wedded to them.
Of course, you could prove us all wrong. Get those two speakers and perform a blind test and show that preference is identical between them, to two decimal places. Until then, Harman research shows that poor directivity is one of the top reasons for lesser preference in listening tests and SVS violates that key research. If it turns out this is indeed the case, then there is a lot that researchers need to answer for.
Fortunately I think the research is good and proper and the issue is limitations of the scoring system which according to its authors, was going to continue to assess other factors:
A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements: Part II - Development of the Model Sean E. Olive, AES Fellow
View attachment 77098
It is possible all of this was done and hence the reason the model published is not used. Perhaps they have a better model that they don't want to share with their competitors. Or they lost interest in developing this further, either because they found issues or didn't think it was important.
Either way, it is great that we have what we have. But don't trust it like a bible. We need to confirm what it is telling us and that is what I do as a listener.