There is no "personal confusion" that you mentioned, and I was not trying to belittle the observations that others have made, simply pointing out that there are too many variables that can change the outcome of the test to make it a universally accepted test at this point in time, and too many people, new and experienced get hung up on it.
It is a personal opinion, just like you have.
The HHT is NOT universally accurate, and for that matter, the other's probably aren't either. But IMO, the other tests take far less "fiddling" to get it to be valuable.
Look at #3 under Finer Points in the link you posted and you will understand what I am saying. There are TOO MANY variables that can affect the outcome of the test.
I'm not saying it doesn't work for some people. If you have the time and want to sit around and measure hair thickness, and only use hairs that have been washed for precisely 3.2 minutes with X shampoo, followed by conditioner Y left on for 1.3 minutes, and massaging it counterclockwise for that time period, then more power to you.
But look at scientists. They use tried and true tests to prove things, not tests with a dozen different variables that can affect the outcome...they use tests that can be duplicated, with the same results for ANYONE, in ANY lap, ANYWHERE in the world. And until there is a formula/method that can be followed by ANYONE, then talking about the test like it is the end-all, be-all test of cutting ability is not justified IMO. Just my $.02.
*EDIT* Respectfully, I understand you're a moderator, but your assumptions that someone hasn't read the article (when in fact I had read the article, several times before), and accusing them of being confused is a little rude. You might ask why they have certain opinions rather than trying to belittle them because they don't see the validity in yours.