Which two sides? Do you intend *can* and me? I don't think we are in competition. I did this work with a cooperative spirit, and I think the same was for him. He has been the best interlocutor I could have find, because, beyond his technical talents, he remains open to give credit to the protagonists of this story, so compensating for my negative bias on them. This relieves me from the burden to find by myself all the possible objections to my own hypotheses.
For the moment, unless *can* provides a third explanation, the two sides corresponds to the interpretation of the December 2010 test contained in the Unibo report and the one described by the graphs plotted by *can* on the basis of my indications. The scientific authority is entirely on the first side. Does it means that you stick with the interpretation reported by UniBo?
Sorry if I gave the impression of pitting you two against each other as competitors. Since Doral, I do not believe any publicly released result from a Rossi demo. That includes the two tests at UOB being discussed. Neither do I think Levi, and those assisting him, ever expected their results to be taken as the final word either. They proposed further testing, which they accomplished first at Ferrara with the Hotcat, and again at Lugano. Lugano was a clear bust, and since it was a follow-up to Ferrara, I must conclude Ferrara was a bust also. Even though no one has determined yet what particular trick Rossi pulled there.
That said, with the exception of Rossi having a hand in it someway, I do not think there was any intentional attempt during any of the tests, by those from the UOB to manipulate the data. And I am not accusing you of saying that! Without any of them willing to speak up, hard to make a case that the science says anything other than what you conclude.