We do not know IH's side of the story about the long-term test. Maybe they did not delay. So this thread is speculative. But I have not heard any good reason for IH to delay, and have just now thought of one!
So: assume that Rossi is 100% correct, IH did not find him a test site (and were not going to do so). Why is this?
IH, if sensible, would want to make sure that Rossi's independent test results (e.g. a hot-cat with COP=3 or so) could be reliably repeated before committing to the long-term test with 100 reactors and a lot of effort.
If, as I've been arguing, IH were stuck unable to substantiate Rossi's test results themselves (as they say), they would be very unwilling to move to this big test. After all, till they have got to the bottom of why stuff does not work for them maybe Rossi's tests were the problem and another test could equally be a problem.
It is also disproportionate effort and expense. The rule in engineering is you get a single unit to work reliably, characterise it, before moving to a complex 100 unit system. Their engineers would therefore would view the long-term 1MW test as premature. They presumably say this to Rossi, who is indignant. He wants to do the long-term test and get his $89M. IH do not publicise this awkward situation. It would be bad PR, and unprofessional to ait these arguments. If at any time in the long-term test they are able to resolve their doubts about Rossi's tests and get stuff to work, there is no problem.
There are several versions of this according to how much IH formally agree to the long-term test. As far as I can see the contract does not require them to agree to it.
The other issue is whether they agreed to Penon. I'd expect them to want a new ERV if uncertain about earlier tests. So either they could not change the ERV because the contract says he stays the same, or Rossi did this on his own without their agreement.
I'd not expect IH to make a detailed description of their relationship with Rossi in an immediate PR. It would be highly unprofessional and also not helpful for the legal action defense. We may get a bit more information within 3 weeks when they make their formal reply to Rossi's action.
Also, it is worth realising that IH's position would be gradually changing from optimistic to pessimistic as they discover more about the operation of Rossi's devices and maybe look again at the 6 positive tests and realise they are not quite what they seem.
Who thinks they knew the full mistake in the Lugano measurements (which when corrected gives COP=1 and critically no acceleration, so no evidence of an exothermic reaction) when they paid $10M, when Rossi started the long-term test? They were saying very positive things about it quite late in the day. All they need do is look at my refutation and get a competent physicist to check it and their views would become quite a lot more negative, because at that point they would also no longer trust the two Ferrara tests. (I know the Lugano mistake could not occur so easily in Ferrara but they would lose trust in the testers).
Maybe this did not happen. But it could be?