In engineering terms, I agree any information tended is likely to be inconclusive - but it might well be the sort of thing that could click with the public. And that's the thing ... the success or otherwise of the Batteroo sleeve will not come from a datasheet - it will come from the perception from the people who will buy them. Engineers will be able to explain that result.
But will they? There's a discussion been going on elsewhere on the board about bad writing in science. I'm sorry to say that a lot, possibly the majority, of scientists and engineers are lousy at communicating science and engineering to the general public. We make a lot of assumptions and tend to come at a topic with baggage.
For example. It's obvious to you and me that in a torch there's a time/brightness trade off that affects battery life and that's the kind of assumption that we take into a conversation with the general public. A member of the general public will most probably not innately understand that and fail to see an argument against the Batteroo that depends on that assumption.
There's a real art to 'popular science' journalism or advocacy that treads a fine line between explaining important assumptions, not providing too much information, putting things in terms that the public can understand, not over simplifying etcetera. Consider how many politicians still don't get that you can have secure cryptography or back doors but not both, and yet they've had advice from some of the worlds foremost experts. If you can't explain something to a bunch of generally intelligent people that's vital to public security and safety (i.e. they have a strong incentive to get it right) then what are the chances with the general public?
Don't get me wrong, it is possible, but the presentation has to be made by a person with the right skill set and is much, much harder to do than one might first think. One needs to boil the whole thing down to where it could be presented in a three minute spot in a video or TV consumer issues programme and the general public would still 'get it'. That to my mind is a tall order.
I'll leave you with an example from my own life. I used to be in the ISP business and I also used to be a tech writer. Back in my ISP days I'd see a lot of support calls that had at their nub a lack of customer understanding of DNS - what it did and how it worked. I set out to write a short explainer that the support staff could fire off at customers who had problems. If I'd been writing it for thee and me, generally techie people, I could have rattled it off in an afternoon. Targeting it at a general audience meant that it took about three days actual writing and then several rounds of making sure that the target audience 'got it' and revising accordingly. I'm a quick writer, I used to bang out 20-40 thousand 'publication ready' words a month and actually edit a magazine section at the same time, but the level of meticulous care needed in getting a highly technical subject just right for a general audience increased the workload by at least a factor of five.
For the avoidance of doubt I am not volunteering. I doubt I'm the man and moreover my late father, a former regular army sergeant, would be horrified if his son hadn't learned the basic lesson of "never volunteer for anything" from his dad.