I agree, the standards are dry and there is a lot of room for interpreting them. It seems even the designers do not agree. But keeping them out of the public where they could be discussed in detail seems to counter the whole point of having them. Personally I would expect the entire reports to be made public. The public ends up paying for the testing in the end anyway.
I view multimeters a little different than most products, thinking people that would buy this type of product would have some technical knowledge. But right there you can see that my thinking is flawed!!!
I wonder what drove UNI-T to offer the GS version of the UT61E. To Fungus's comment, if the body is not going to ensure the mark has any credibility, there was no reason for mandating it in the first place.
.... how is any national organization going to test it? Putting a Hi-Pot tester at the customs office? Order random stuff from AliExpress and test it?
That's a very good question. I think Snell started out doing just that. Buying a small number of helmets, testing them then making the results public. Eventually you started to see articles in popular magazines that helped educate the public. Over time, people like me started using that public list to determine what to buy. I would not use a helmet that was not Snell approved. It's a fairly high risk hobby in the first place and proper gear is important.
I can tell you from my own little benchmarking, unlike with Snell, it's driven out of general curiosity rather than a tragic death of a friend. Had it been the later, I may have been following the actual surge tests rather than what is more important to me, robustness or the meters ability to survive some minimal transients. Believe me, I have zero thought of ever trying to turn it into a money making business or charging for the information I collect. But, you may be amazed at the backlash I receive from running such tests!