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.
You're rewriting his results to make them unassailable but it makes the results indefensible.
His subjective analysis of the beers is the only data available on the distinction of the beers. We can't know objectively what he tasted, only his descriptions and the berth between the good and bad results. If you're saying we can't trust the description of the control beer or the distinction between the descriptions of each beer then we can't trust the description of the test beer and we can't trust that the berth between the two is accurate either, not even within his subjective analysis. I agree that his opinions of the beers are not objective facts; but if the descriptions are not even accurate to his opinions then you're stuck with no reliable data.
If the descriptions are so open to flexibility on the basis of what another person tastes then we can equally rewrite his conclusions to say the difference between the beer is so marginal that it makes no sense to try to do more about oxygen ingress--because maybe the difference between great and drain pour for him is marginal and we just can't know which is true. If the data can be so easily rewritten to support diametrically opposite conclusions then the data has no value and as a result, neither do the conclusions drawn from it.
The data is either manufactured to confirm a conclusion or so wholly unreliable that it must be discounted altogether. Either the descriptions are accurate to his tasting or inaccurate. It isn't both.
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.
The only fair comparator would be for Bilsch to confirm whether he thinks that three month of Weihenstephan is also a drain pour because he's the only one that knows what he tasted in his control beer.
If he says it isn't a drain pour then there's a shortfall in the LODO bottling process to work out. If it is a drain pour then we just accept that, at least for him, beer has less than a three month shelf life even under the best conditions and people make brewing and packaging decisions within that contention.
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.
There's no disagreement that cap ingress occurs or that oxygen causes staling.