As I mention in the article, Blackstone (and most any other lab) does not keep statistical data, they only keep the raw numbers. And Blackstone does provide the "universal average". But as I've shown, that UA data has significant potential to be skewed. Although, that data would never be skewed down, but only up. So as long as you were near or below average, your numbers are probably OK.
Further, different labs use diffeernt testing methods and condemtnation numbers. You really have to know the specifics of each lab. My point in the article is that way too many people misunderstand how/why to use a UOA.
I doubt Blackstone, or any lab, really has the time/resources to hand out data for every single piece of equipment family they test lubes for. I worked with Blackstone for this article, as part of the relationship BITOG and Blackstone have as partnered sponsors. I hope most would agree that this relationship is a "win/win" for BITOG and Blackstone.
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.
Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...