> Obviously I and the writer of the article disagree with you that it fails the first case.
That's hard to tell in your case, since most of your commentary has been explicitly skipping past the criticism of the failure of the proxy to have a clear link to the thing it was taken as a proxy to say that doesn't matter since the results were about what you would xpect, rather than actually addressing the criticism.
So it sounds like you were failing to understand the first test more than you were disagreeing with the criticism based on it. And, as yet, you haven't stated any reason for disagreeing, just continued to skip to the second test.
That's hard to tell in your case, since most of your commentary has been explicitly skipping past the criticism of the failure of the proxy to have a clear link to the thing it was taken as a proxy to say that doesn't matter since the results were about what you would xpect, rather than actually addressing the criticism.
So it sounds like you were failing to understand the first test more than you were disagreeing with the criticism based on it. And, as yet, you haven't stated any reason for disagreeing, just continued to skip to the second test.