The pimping is so transparent...
Buster
( a well respected Dyson oil analysis customer) but no expert says: "I do question the ability of a $20 UOA to accurately show engine wear based on some of the things I have read."
I will flavor that idea and statement up a bit and say that I question any oil analysis report that does not get properly interpreted ( time, unit and lube data base comparison, and experience) or its just a bunch of numbers. The old Dog watching TV analogy.
RL discounts basic UOA because their formulas are hard to interpret! So the average Joe dismiss's the results here.
Specialty Formulations are as hard or harder to calibrate for and as ALL the lube formulators change add packs to new and less familiar chemistries it will get more difficult to grasp.
Conventional oils in engines (specifically low wear indications we see here in this Toyota/Pennzoil result) "can" develop shorter term low wear indications. Especially lower solvency lubes which after a time period see deposits that hide under varnish coatings. Thus using Auto-RX periodically and LC in small doses frequently! Or variations of that theme based on PROPERLY interpreted oil analysis results.
Our new premium kit used Atomic Absorption spectro which is very accurate, within 2-5 ppm. Inductive coupled Plasma spectro from Blackstone labs is probably right behind that level of accuracy. 5 ppm or so.
Oil adds especially phosphorus can be less accurate, ours is 15%. Wear levels are very tight though.
Hope that helps a bit. Even though Bill didn't use our services for this run, it looks darn accurate to me.