So please let me get this straight. Statistics are in the case of DBT generally the results of a test, that test designed to create statistics that can be used to prove or disprove the efficacy of a product.

How can you create those statistics in anyway other than retrospective to the DBT. The test procedure produced say six positives and one negative, the odds of this happening are c.5%. The maths existed prior to the test, but are implemented retrospective to the tests to produce what you would claim are meaningful statistics.

I would agree that statistics can be interpreted in many ways and are indeed a minefield. But you and others are advocating  DBT/ABX procedures that create statistics to support an arguement. Retrospectively of course.

Now we have already argued that the procedure is flawed, given the potential for outside influences such as fatigue to cloud the result. We now find you saying that statistics are misleading and should not be used retrospectively.

Please continue to enlighten me as to why I should consider your methodology to be superior to the traditional listening test. I don't consider myself to be agressive BTW. Direct and to the point yes, but I imagine you would find this to resemble agression if you feel threatened by any of the points raised. If that is the case, may I apologise for having the temerity to question your thinking on the matter.