I think we're talking past each other.... What I'm saying is that it should be considered synthetic, because you know, it's the product of synthesis. And it performs like the other oils labeled as "synthetic".What people say on here is only opinion because nowhere is the term actually defined by any standards entity. Only in Germany is it defined for marketing purposes. And despite the great worrying people ascribe to the NAD decision here in the US it was based on a proper technical analysis.
And again you persist in misunderstanding the purpose of API Annex E. GTL is Group III because it meets the criteria for interchange, again as defined in the document itself. Like you, people on here nearly always misuse the document in clear violation of the stated purpose which is spelled out in the Annex. Have you read it? It's not to define which base stocks are synthetic and which are not, and likewise it is not "absurd" at all. What's absurd is people making long prognostications on here about the document when they fundamentally misunderstand its purpose.
Specifications, licenses and approvals rule because they directly represent the performance of the finished product and this avoids the flapping around associated with goofy threads about the definition of base stock origin.
But some other people have this erroneous idea that ONLY Group IV/V are "synthetic" and everything else is substandard, including GTL oil and stuff like Helix Ultra. Which is wrong- those are fantastic oils that are the equal of any other high performance oil and meet some of the toughest specs in the industry.
That's why I'm saying that the whole concept of "synthetic" oils as a category that means anything other than the literal way their basestocks were created is useless.
I even saw you quiz someone in a thread about some 0w-40 Mobil 1 oil in a different thread from 2018 where they said that the old one was good when it was PAO, but they changed it to Group III, and they're looking for a new oil as a result, because they perceived it to have become inferior. And in effect, you said "What's wrong with the new one?"
Which is exactly what I'm getting at- I would have said the same thing for the same reasons.