We left the F&P row blank precisely because of the large body of negative and often flawed criticism that has accumulated over the intervening years.
The 1992 experiment in particular is not a good choice for that reason, though I agree that an example is needed for the work of F&P.
Are you aware of the opinion of one of the most knowledgeable expert in the field about the importance of the 1992 experiment?
From: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf (page 14 – bold added)
McKubre pointed out that Fleischmann was a master of theory and mathematics, in ways that people with post-1940s educations seldom attain. Fleischmann would often point to something and say “that is obvious” when it was not a bit obvious to McKubre. Fleischmann’s mathematical analysis of calorimetry was far more complex than most people's. He told me he preferred simple hardware and complicated “software” — by which he meant computation; thinking and running equations in his head. Not computers, which, as I said, he distrusted. Hand in hand with his analytical legerdemain, he strongly believed in simple, direct experiments, such as the boil-off technique and graphs that spoke for themselves. He liked nothing better than an experiment stripped down to its essentials, so that it could not be refuted. The title of his major paper says it all: “From simplicity via complications back to simplicity" …
Let's see if we can find a group consensus that will be less argument-prone.
This is the best reason to propose this experiment to the Team Google. Its replica will definitively resolve most of these controversial and still pending arguments.