I haven't looked at the TGP as a comprehensive scientific study but rather an in-depth review. I don't believe that a major scientific study is of value for existing products like these, especially when the question of who would pay for them is asked. If we are talking R&D purposes for a grinder manufacturer then the answer may be different.
It is indeed nice to see things like SEM pictures of the ground coffee, which may inspire others to find correlations that fuels further research. However, I don't recall any of the authors claiming this was a scientific study because of the pictures. It's just another tool, which few have access to, used to enlighten.
I was, and still am, excited about the TGP because this is different than most product reviews in that there is some side by side comparison AND multiple people doing the reviews. What makes this most interesting to me is that the reviews are being done by competent Home Baristas (Dan, back me up on this!). This should yield better buying guides than what is out there now (virtually nothing) for this level of grinder.
Reviews are subjective, as is taste. If each of the reviewers states that grinder A brings out brighter notes and that grinder B brings out deeper notes that helps in a decision making process when buying. Likewise, as they point out usability issues YOU are able to decide what is important to YOU when YOU make a purchase.
Take the TGP for what it is and use the information presented. If it's not what you're looking for then do your own evaluation and share that with others.



