I'm lost. At times I think the challenge is to verify what GS claims.
We are still doing the same thing but simply finding issues around trust. If Cameron were here, then I would test him myself. Indeed in the past I have offered thousands of dollars for proof of such things by spending my own money to travel to the location of the poster to do the test correct. This can't be done right now due to distance and travel restrictions.
So an alternative is to get people who have no stake in the outcome -- or at least not nearly as much -- to take the same test but this time controlled. I have more trust in this situation than letting Cameron take the test. He has many ways to game this test from practicing in advance to finding tells to who knows what. These other people do not as they don't have a review to prove.
"Review" is the key word here. We don't have an online person with such claims. We have a reviewer telling people that the Magnius is broken in multiple ways. It reasons then that he believes his assessments would apply to others. Otherwise why be a reviewer?
If I were challenged on my measurements, you could get here and watch me measure things again. Or, find another person similarly situated to make another set of measurements. You wouldn't be "confused" about this way of proving my results. Not sure why you would be confused about doing the same for listening tests.
Put the challenge aside: don't you want to know at all if someone else can experience the same thing Cameron did in his video? Why is that not of interest to you? This is of huge interest to me and others and is the reason we are in favor of digital capture and letting everyone here for themselves.
If Magnius is broken, there should be no issue with arriving at that truth in different ways. All provide valuable data to the discussion. I don't know why anyone believing in objectively analyzing this would want to limit the options for verifying it.