I'd love to see one of you [this is an invitation] actually construct a healthy dialog that leads to a productive outcome.
If you truly would love to see that, then you shouldn't lead with the threat of litigation, and you should stop acting as though typing the word "fact" in ALL CAPS magically constitutes evidence for unsupported assertions.
Here's a hypothetical example of what a healthy dialogue could look like:
You: "The speakers weren't measured properly. The acoustic center is different, it doesn't look like the through-holes where the feet go were sealed, and the speaker tested looks like an old-production example. That speaker, tested that way, will not measure accurately to how the speaker actually performs. I don't think it's fair to present or assess the speaker's performance based on that."
Response: "Okay, interesting. Can you show us how the speaker is supposed to measure?"
You: "Sure, here's an example. We don't use an Audio Precision Analyzer, and I'm not going to go back and run my own counterpart to every single test you ran, but you don't need all that to see what I'm talking about. Here's some quasi-anechoic measurements that clearly show different response through the upper-mids and no 180Hz resonance" (or whatever).
Response: "Well, I don't know that the type of measurements you've taken are valid below 200Hz, and I'd need to see step-response and off-axis measurements to determine if there's any difference between your measurements and mine in those areas - but I do see the difference in the upper-mid frequency response between your measurements and mine. I'll add a bolded note to the top of the review, temporarily remove the FR graphs, and we can work together to sort this out. Do you have a current-production example of the speaker you can send me?"
You: "Sure, but only if you show me your measurements and review before you publish it."
Response: "I'll show you the measurements beforehand to make sure there are no questions of fact or measurement procedure, but I can't give you review authority or veto power over the entire review or my own final assessment/conclusion. If you can live with that, let's do this."
You: "Okay - but I'm warning you, if your subjective conclusions don't match what you measure from the speaker, I reserve the right to take action."
Response: "Fair enough."
Or you could just threaten a lawsuit, continue to repetitively post a robotic boilerplate statement obviously crafted by or with your attorney in preparation for a lawsuit, make nonsense claims about acoustical physics vs electronic physics, and continue to refuse to provide a shred of quantitative substantiation for any of your claims.
It's up to you.