Outcomes 3, 4 and 5 are what usually happens to cold fusion claims. This experiment is easier than most, and it apparently produces more power, more readily, so I hope these outcomes are less likely
I think they are extremely unlikely. This report is essentially 10x larger than most if not all clear and even slightly credible reports. And absent error or fraud, it is very credible. And fraud, as I said. is somewhat improbable or better.
Rossi demonstrates why high power claims and a high power ratio can be wrong. Or deceptive.
Rossi demonstrated how easy it is to fool desirous people with complete garbage. Anybody who had pushed Rossi to calibrate properly early on and to allow proper inspection of the gear would have defeated his fraud. Why nobody forced the issue is an ongoing mystery to me. Had Rossi refused, that would also have been strong negative evidence. We all know the usual suspects for what actually took place.
Some people have said they don't trust air flow calorimeters at all, and these results will not be believable until they are seen with something like a Seebeck calorimeter. That's silly. Those people are looking for an excuse to ignore the results.
I agree with you for the power and power ratios you are claiming here. It might be good to have Seebeck results but it's probably overkill and it isn't very easy. As I said though, you can make it easier with the use of premanufactured heat flux transducers and if the inside of the Seebeck is very thermally conductive (thick copper for example) you don't need to do more than sample the walls with the heat meters at some reasonable intervals (which can be calculated). This has been done with Seebeck calorimeters intended for biological research with living animals, Portland cement work and other chemistry experiments. Some of these were quite large. The largest would accommodate a cow! But you're right. Such refinement isn't required at the levels of heat claimed.