Got a link to the testing by chance?
Was the test made in a fashion to offset geometry bias? I have knives in S30V steel that outlast other knives I have in ZDP-189 because the geometry differences between the two. Likewise, a Bark River I have in CPM-154 (about 60 HRC) holds an edge longer than some knives I have in M390, S90V, SuperBlue, and high-hardness ZDP-189 (over 65 HRC), and the explanation for the difference is not steel-related. The grind differences between a CSAR-T, a Vantage Force Pro, Benchmade Grip, and a Benchmade Osborne series are huge (even the differences in blades among the different Osborne models like the 940, 943, 770, 960, 930, etc. is major variation, and the outright thickness of blades vary quite a lot.) Some tests have attempted to minimize this by cutting objects of a size that would minimize how much geometry affects the cut because of how major the affects can be. Was a method used to offset this?
What was the test material? Was it a material that tends to be more harsh in regards to the speed of edge deformation or a material that tends to be easier on them? (the former which will generally favor steels that have contents which improve wear resistance, like vanadium.) Were the knives reprofiled to all have the same inclusive angle?
(sorry if I missed the original thread and all of this has already been done!)