The "basic math" is knowing what the CFM capability of a given area of filter material is at a specified test pressure.
Then you get to factor in all of the other constraints (choke points, capacity limitations, etc.) for the test equipment used when comparing the same amount of filter area across different brands / types.
Questioning the results when inconsistencies between what you'd expect to see vs. actual results is reasonable and understood. Calling someone else's test data bogus when you yourself have nothing to show that proves otherwise is just pissin' on it.
I don't burn books, but I put a lot less value in unverified opinions over quantifiable test data, even if the methodology may not be ideal. At least that's a starting point for refining the test approach, especially when those inconsistencies show up.
