The UL report is complete trash and doesn't meet even the most basic of criteria for carrying out such a test; they should be embarrassed to have put their name to it.
Following the standard disclaimer, the actual "test" section reads like it was written by a 10 year old.
UL did precisely the test they were asked to do by Batteroo, using Batteroo-supplied testing aparatus and method.
Predictably, the results and the report were just as (in)valid as the test criteria provided by Batteroo.
Aside from actually agreeing to do such a bogus test in the first place, it isn't UL's fault.
They may have just been carrying out the test dictated by Batteroo but, they failed to adequately describe the test set-up, the method or the equipment used, they did not record any serial numbers and they did not repeat the test. As a reputable organisation they should know better than to produce this kind of drivel.
Well, from my perspective, I believe they produced report of equal "bogosity" to the test itself.
They seem to be by the way the disclaimer is written.
I agree... I believe they
were embarrassed by the irrelevant (to the point of essentially being fraudulent) nature of the test that they intentionally wrote that half-assed report with disclamers galore. Not at all what you would expect from a reputable test organization.
I also believe, however, that they should not have agreed to do such a silly test in the first place but I'm sure they had their reasons for doing it anyway, despite the fact that it was obvious nonsense.