@mastering92 , how many people work under you?? What is the most number of people you have ever had work under you at a company?
Microsoft is huge. How many people at Microsoft have 1,000 people under them? You argument about them being a huge company matters little. Huge companies also don't allow people to grow into rolls where 1,000 people are under them if they are "failed". Sure, it happens, but in general, if you rise to have 1,000 people under you, then you had a lot of success and accomplishments along the way. When you make statements like that, it has no relevance to the discussion and just comes across as sour grapes. To me, I won't even read the rest of what you wrote as making that statement shows you are unable to be objective in your views and analysis. If you want people to respect what you write, then be respectful in your writing.
Go on and on? A list of what people without experience fear serves no purpose in your credibility with me. In my experience, people who specify "ceramic saftey capacitors" and "no saftey resistors" know how to spell "safety". Can you tell me the difference between a computer grade "vertical-chip capacitor" and an audio capacitor? I doubt my EEs know, perhaps they could learn something.
Perhaps you can share how if you measure a box, that happens to be a DAC, you are not measuring "the total sum of parts inside the electronics, but the DAC chip at the engineering standard itself". How could the equipment doing the measuring of the box measure anything but the total sum of the parts? Your statement is not logical.
I am not an EE, but I have a bunch working for me and I am quite aware of the processes and decision trees they use to achieve the results we have targeted and it is not to throw out a laundry list of fears. I would suggest not doing the same for speakers. That is an area I know very well.
It is good to be critical of any form of review, whether a listening test or even a measurement to ensure what was done is accurate and representative. However, your last post is not a reasoned critique addressing specific elements. It is an appeal. It does more to justify ASRs existence than it does to discredit it.
A critique would be calling into question the Klippel testing that was done of a large panel speaker. While Klippel can still provide highly accurate measurements of a speaker such as this, the test procedure must be modified, not just in the number of measurement points (which was done), but also the measurement cloud locations (and distance). This relates, as Amir has noted, to the accuracy of the model, but that accuracy figure is based on assumptions of what is being measured, so both need to be adapted and accurate to accurately assess the error band. As well, the calculated summaries such as predicted room response, reflections, etc. must be adapted when a source is large enough to behave as a line array in the room it will be installed in or they will be grossly inaccurate at the listening position.