I thought the role of the LODO process is to preserve the fresh flavors of the beer and delay staling?
If so, it seems like a beer brewed by all the right LODO processes should be better than a drain pour after ninety days at near freezing temperatures. In fact, you would have to accept as true that all bottled beer is drain pour quality in ninety days or less because even the largest German brewers producing whatever you think is the gold standard for LODO beer suffers the same bottle cap ingress. Their beers are not transported or stored under pressure with CO2. That seems like painting yourself into quite a corner.
We need to make a distinction here before the dialogue back and forth gets distorted: Just because Bilsch chose to dump the handful of bottles he saved as controls due to the fact that HIS sensory analysis of the beer showed fault, doesn't mean that every other brewer in the same situation would have done that also. The main goal was to see if the storage method mitigated cap ingress, and to his taste buds it did.
This isn't an indictment of all bottled beer based on this single data point. It is true, however, that many commercial beers going through the distribution chain are degraded after even 90 days. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy a 3 month of Weihenstephan, I just recognize that there are characteristic oxidation flavors happening at that time interval where I can get it.
Cap ingress is a fact. The degree to which each person interprets the flavor hit is different. We should not conflate Bilsch's subjective opinion with fact. His opinion does, however, align with what many of us have tasted after bottle spunding, i.e. muted hop aromas over time, loss of the fresh malt flavor we try hard to preserve, etc. The experiment was conducted to test a hypothesis: will storage conditions affect cap ingress? In that light, it was a success, because it gave us a control to base further explorations on.
As always (it's frustrating to always have to end with this, but it's true), YMMV.