What do Tr125, Tr225 etc. mean?
Those points are completely different from Mizuno's. You are nowhere close to replicating his conditions. You cannot draw any conclusions about his calorimetry, or whether his 7 points are sufficient to characterize the whole surface.
On the other hand, I can draw conclusions based on first principles. As I did. Unless you doubt the input power and temperature measurements, you must agree that Mizuno is measuring the flow rate correctly, and it has to be uniform. As I said, he would get the wrong answer otherwise. Calibrations would show either much less heat recovered than input at 10 W, 30 W and 50 W, or much more recovered. That's what calibrations are for. They show the instrument is working, or it is not working.
(THH has claimed the input power measurements cannot be believed, however many meters have confirmed them. He must think the 3 power meter are all wrong to exactly the same extent, and in a way that exactly compensates for 5 thermometers and the 2 anemometers, so that by some fantastic coincidence, the answers always come out right, and the heat always balances up to 50 W. That would never happen in the life of the universe.)
THH might conclude that Mizuno's data is somehow wrong, and Mizuno's anemometer is not working because your results are so different from his. I trust you have more common sense than that. Obviously you are both measuring correctly. You cannot make a hot wire digital anemometer misbehave enough to cause such giant differences. Go ahead and try! Clearly, you two are looking at physically different systems.
There are countless graphs and illustrations of laminar versus turbulent flows, and they all show the former has varying flow rates, and the latter does not. Both exist. Such textbook phenomena are not questionable or odd or somehow unbelievable, contrary to THH's synthetic doubts.