The margin of error in her D3s measurements were very small; she included them for completeness, and was open about not understanding their source. The variance was small enough to be immaterial to the results.
Sorry, but your statement does not align well with hers:
I re-tested both of my D3 bodies, plus the new D3s, for this - just to make sure I produced a valid comparison. For some obscure reason - sunspots or moon phase or other strangeness - photons are behaving better today, and I achieved higher FWC results for my D3's than I have before. Because of this discrepancy, I am only going to report relative performance between the D3s and D3, instead of giving absolute measurements.
She states the discrepancy was significant enough that she would not report the absolute values. If the source of the discrepancy could not be identified, it cannot be assumed to be a systematic error, i.e. one which would affect the measurements of the new D3s with similar magnitude and direction as it would the old D3 bodies.
Inconsistent data, flawed assumptions...bad science.
She has a high standard for what she publishes. Her relative D3s vs D3 results still match DxO's results, and her absolute results are very close as well.
'Black box' methods...bad science.
I think we're done here.
Seems we couldn't come to an agreement but I appreciate the discussion.