THIS MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF SENSE TO ME. IMHO--NDA OR NOT--IT WOULD BE FOOLHARDY FOR A MANUFACTURER TO SHARE THE REASONS WHY THEIR ENTRY WAS REJECTED......
IN LIGHT OF THIS, I AM NOT SURPRISED THAT LITTLE HARD EVIDENCE EXISTS.....
It's not so much that "hard evidence" is or isn't involved, but that industry giants often have a proprietary or commercial interest in not spewing the results of things all over the public domain.
Sometimes it's entirely anticlimactic, too. I remember being told by one company that they discovered one of their submissions was disqualified for an out-of-spec chamber-spec, only to later have it determined that a test person had mistakenly used the wrong chamber gauge. By the time it was realized, the testing had proceeded so far that it would've been a major issue to appeal it, so the company let it go. in the interest of not making unnecessary waves. I was told that they felt their opportunity would come back around for the next testing, so why make waves and potential bad feelings?
Sometimes the info might be reported and filed in a way that makes it available to public scrutiny, though, as was the case when the P250 didn't meet a state gov test (I think it was), and the results of some of the testing (including explanations) was made available online.
Today's loser is tomorrow's winner, and vice versa. Etc, Etc.
Only the brand/flag waving loyalists and fans tend to make a big deal out of some particular test, anyway. For the rest of us it's just another episode in the ever-ongoing series of proposals, bids and multiple tests that may reveal the good, as well as the occasional warts and hiccups. No biggie.
