Agree with the overexacting precision, I was thinking more like A,B,C,D.
I also had a different idea, a real mathematical fudge factor, that would work like this: Whenever IPVM would measure the performance of a camera's stated specification, during normal testing, the difference between that and the stated spec would affect the manufacturer's fudge factor for that spec. Sounds complicated, but an concrete example might help. N
For instance, when measuring the dynamic range of Cocky Cam's U-WDRVII offering, you find only 100 dB of actual dynamic range instead of the reported 125dB, you adjust their DR fudge factor to -25dB. You basically keep the biggest exaggeration of any camera as the fudge factor.
The cool thing is that the manufacturer can fix their abysmal FF without doing anything to the camera. They just change the spec sheet. Voila! From negative -25 to +5 instantly!
Mentally we all do this type of adjustment to some degree, this is just a way to get it out there clearly AND give manufacturers a real reward for bring the hype down...
Btw, the reason I was thinking this was because of your rhetorical question in another thread:
Or else do you really believe that Vivotek cameras max WDR is 140dB vs just 130dB for Sony's best?
I didn't know if you were saying Sony always has better technology, or that they never lie, or maybe that Vivotek was on a par with Speco?
You had an informal FF in your head for Vivotek and Sony that you used to compare them. So let's just make it a bit less mysterious and a bit more public.