If you don't have the right scientific qualifications, your findings doesn't matter.
By this standard, we can safely disqualify any statement made by AR about his devices. Indeed, this may also apply to Penon depending on how far you want to take this (such as must a person have a doctorate directly related to the field of study?). We could also probably disqualify the Lugano report given that the authors did not have doctorates in thermodynamics.
I'm not trying to suggest that qualifications don't matter. They do. But they do no automatically confer objectivity, proper methods, or proper analysis. Levi et. al. were probably not adequately qualified to conduct this test on the basis of prior experience. That's not to say that they couldn't conduct a proper test given enough time and study (I feel fairly certain they could). You don't need to be an expert to know that the study is fatally flawed. You can read it once with a basic understanding of calorimetry and realize there is very little to learn from the test. You cannot say much about a study that has not conducted a proper calibration. TC and others really went above and beyond what was necessary--giving the benefit of the doubt and then reasons for why the results were invalid. You need to do more than appeal to authority to dismiss criticism. Tell us what is wrong with the analysis.