....I'm big on proof rather than "suspicions". And however well-founded you may think your suspicions are, you've answered my question: you don't have any proof that the tests were newer powders vs older, bulk powders. Not about you at all; rather about the lack of proof. Thanks.
If you take a quick look back at your previous comment, I see; 'to me, that makes it sound like' and 'not much point in testing'. It seems you could conclude that only 'new' powders were tested, and you could make conclusions on excluded powders. Not personal at all, but curious how valid some well-founded assumptions might be without apparent proof.
