It says "suitable for" or "Recommended for", which means that from their perspective, it's appropriate to recommend for those applications. This does not mean that it is approved or would meet the performance requirements if officially tested.
Think about that statement for a moment. Their cheaper oil, the Redline Professional series, is officially approved, but their significantly more expensive oil, the old white bottle Performance series, would be "prohibitively expensive" to approve. Take all the time you need.
The old white bottle oil has absolutely no manufacturer approvals, which is fine, it's an oil blended in a manner that would prevent it from obtaining them, having very high levels of certain additives, but that's the reason, not that the approvals are expensive. CP has lots of money, if it would aide in increasing sales of the white bottle product, they'd have no problem pursuing them. It's a formula that hasn't changed in probably several decades at this point and isn't compliant with modern emissions standards and additive limits, that's why it isn't approved.
Yes, it's common knowledge on here that the white bottle oil is a predominantly PAO-based product with a good slug of POE in it.
Nope. In Germany the oil must be at least 75% Group IV/V to be labelled synthetic (vollsynthetisches). The rest of the world, that rule doesn't apply. Even then, there can be a percentage of Group III or Group II in the blend.
Yet the other oils managed to make their way through the "prohibitively expensive" approval processes
Yes, Redline white bottle has a very low Noack, but then so does M1 0w-40 (8.8%), Ravenol SSL 0w-40 (8.5%) and Ravenol's Euro 5w-30, which has ALL the actual OEM approvals and a Noack of 6.4%.
Well, guess we can shut the board down now since you've solved it.