There were other tests using other methods of calorimetry, such as continuous reflux boiling. These other methods also showed excess heat. Other methods were also used before and after the boil-off.
In your previous comment, you wrote "In France, they [F&P] repeated the experiment hundreds of times, 16 tests at a time. (Four arrays of 4 cells each, run simultaneously.) Nearly all of the tests worked. Results were much stronger and clearer toward the end of the project."
I asked you: have you any evidence that these tests (I mean the hundreds of 16 tests at a time in four arrays similar to the experimental set-up with 4 open cells that can be seen in the time lapse video you have linked) have produced stronger and clearer results with respect to those shown in the "Simplicity paper" describing the "1992 boil off experiment"?
In such a case, or assuming that you are in possession of privy information which confirm such better results, can you explain why F&P didn't publish them, so that the 5 CF experts commissioned in 2004 to select a few meaningful works to submit to DoE for review, had no other choice to include in the list a 12 years old document such as the "Simplicity paper"?
It is not likely the heat started before the boil off, stopped during the boil off, and then started again after it.
Yes, I fully agree. In my opinion it's even much more than unlikely, it's nearly impossible.
Therefore, if F&P were able to commit such a big mistake in calculating the energy balance during the boil off phase in their 1992 experiment (the most famous and best documented of their experiments), there is no reason to believe that they were correct in calculating any excess heat in the phases before or after the boil off, nor in any other experiment carried out before or after the "1992 boil off experiment".