If two people are in disagreement about the same facts, then one of them is either misinformed or lying. It's that simple.

If the only recourse seems to be to sink to the level of mud-slinging, with no clear ability to point to the audit trail and say "this is where it all went wrong", then it calls into question the value of that auditing process.

I'm personally unimpressed with the TPC process in general. I remember one "benchmark" that showed the performance of a 2RU server breaking some record, and it was a minor footnote that it was using a disk array with 7,500 drives in it -- dedicated to that one server for the duration of the test. That's an absurd setup that will never exist at any customer, ever.

I ran that same software myself on literally the exact same server, and it couldn't even begin to approach the posted TPC numbers on typical storage. It was at least two orders of magnitude slower.

The rub was that its inefficient usage of storage was the main problem, and the vendor was pulling a smoke & mirrors trick to hide this deficiency of their product. The TPC numbers were an outright fraud in this case, at least in my mind.

So to me, TPC looks like a staged show where the auditors are more like the referees in a WWE wrestling competition.