Fact is that everything we as players do to try to prove or disprove a feature is working as intended is irrelevant; anything anyone professes is anecdotal at best.
This is exactly the sort of 'knowledge is impossible' reasoning I was talking about. There is no margin for error, there is only absolute knowledge, and as absolute knowledge cannot be obtained, we cannot learn anything from observation.
'Anecdotal' information is still information. People love that word because it lets them sound science-y, yet still be dismissive without having to engage in any actual analysis. The original poster took a number of 'anecdotal' data points and compiled them into a collection of data. Your argument that no one could ever take a number of instances and draw conclusions from that is not reasoning, but instead just a convoluted call to faith. You can argue with the original poster's margin for error based on his sample size, but instead you claim nothing is provable because observation cannot result in understanding, merely 'anecdote'.
Close your eyes, foolish mortals, and cover your ears, for nothing that passes can you ever comprehend.