How about 40 members here accepting post #1 and dropping the denials? That would be a good place to go now.
Seriously.
Who doesn't accept post #1 to begin with? The outcome of mentioned tests is not at such scrutinized. Then in post #1 a speculation is made, what the reason for the outcome might be. That's still 'science' of course, but debateable. I'm leaning towards another reasoning along some lines Dr Guenther Theile draw into the blue. (He's also an academic with a ph/d, many prices, well reknown, but denialed on this board.)
To come to terms with sound engineers, mixers, producers and not the least all those people in the acceptance board of a production. Consider this little experiment:
Get hands on an illustrious team of sound/mix/recording engineers. They won't be educated (anymore) in terms of high fidelity (because they know the truth, so they think), no 'training' available.
Let them bring their own recordings.
Let them re-mix these over the speakers under test.
And only for convenience, what were the questions?
Would they only use linear equalization, and to what extend?
Does it correlate with linear deviations of the speaker under test (DUT) in comparison to the speaker originally used for the mix?
Would it even correlate to deviations of the DUT versus the 'ideal'?
For cross check, let them do the same with recordings made by the other guys.
Questions are obvious, or should I for the sake of science?