There was an active campaign to dismiss our findings and to paint us as improperly executing the tall target test.
Lots of, "You're not doing it right", "you can't read the scopes as we set them up", "you're doing it too far, not far enough", the problem is, once it goes from the small advances towards us to select influencers, we become the bad guys. They no longer have to prove it, we have to prove our worth in doing it.
Now we simply look at the setup in the rings, (1/3 of the class is canted in the rings), we then check the gross adjustment, is it set up to reach 1000 yards, or will it top out early. A few scopes were not zeroed correctly initially so we fixed them, stuff like zero stops in the way, etc. Then we demonstrate Parallax, which due to this type of testing we do, has changed. So we see diminishing returns.
The recording of the results was something we added to our God Book, that same God Book helped develop Weaponized Math as we recorded information from every student. We simply stopped recording and backing up the tests because if we did see scopes that didn't test at 100% we confirmed it with both the students and all instructors.
It's hard to say how to respond, often we had one scope test at 100% and another at 98% so our question was, how come one is 100 and one is 98, that it was just a general observation, but still we are doing it wrong. That charge can only hurt our cause not help it so we stopped.