I glanced at the 'good information'. It's data, not information....and requires a CIA level decoder ring to really understand each granule since there's no legend in the report. I suspect the asterisks of (fail) influence the reading. It's a critical path to market any product that has DOT measures applied to it and that would be my acid test of pass/fail. In other words, if a manufacturer hasn't done their due diligence in getting the appropriate third party certifications of a product in this scenario....the lawyers would be all over the first accident that could even remotely be attributed to its use. Hence disclaimers such as "for off road use only" when a product is clearly aimed at on road use.
Here are my immediate impressions....the report only focused on the 'spread' of the light.....not the distance it projected, contrast ratio (the color thing) and the brightness measures weren't easily understood. Second, and most important...it's 13 years old. Tell me what technology that is in flux for the past thirteen years you would rely on that age of data to form an opinion? That predates the first I-phone by five years. Consider also, at the time of this report, 42 inch, 720P plasma TV's were around $8000 according to a friend of mine who owns an A/V chain of stores and LCD HDTV was only in magazine articles. Lastly, the preamble to the report on the website was 98% marketing, so it should be discounted 100%.
That said...if you like today's HID retrofit product, then it's the right thing for you. Some have had excellent results with LED, some still like their old H4 based on purely human perceptions, or purely human cash flow, over science/pseudoscience or even marketing.