For what its worth, I would personally welcome ANYONE to use data to show the drop evals are wrong. That is what WOULD be welcome.
Also, your results dont conflict with the drop eval results, at least not yet. Its an eval designed to see if theres likely to be a frequent problem—nothing more. In no way, shape or form does it say there’s ALWAYS a problem. Individuals may have claimed that, but its not what the eval says or claims to do as far as I can see. Nor does the info we have from you say there ISNT a problem, as theres no documented info provided on a previous zero, handling, and subsequent zero check. I am well aware you have no intention of providing that, just pointing out that without this info I have no way to tell if you have even tracked and checked the zero, or if you are basing your statements on minute of deer results at relatively short range, the way I see virtually everyone do it at the shooting range. Thats not a challenge or questioning you btw, its only to say that the beauty in all of this is that any one of us can easily check this stuff for ourselves without needing to trust any stranger from the interweb. And, if we dont have the item to check ourselves we have not only the documented evals, but also a poll, approaching a decade worth of monthly posts on the topic, AND the people such as you chiming in that theirs are all good. Based on all that we can all make our own decisions. But it sure would be nice if there was something more than unspecific anecdote to show the evals are baseless. Its not that I dont believe you, I do—its just that to a lot of folks anything documented trumps anything that isnt documented.