The automated UX-ROM runs publish themselves, which means they publish their weak results too. That is intentional, but it does require readers to understand what the numbers can support.
Take the most recent experimental run. It applied one reversible change and recorded one comparison:
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Machine | HP ZBook Firefly 14 G8 |
| Windows build | 26200 |
| Change applied | HP System Information manual-start functional validation |
| Samples per window | 1 |
| Window length | approximately 120 seconds each |
| Power | AC, plan not recorded |
| Median processor use before | 18.5% |
| Median processor use after | 18% |
A 0.5 percentage point shift on a single 120 second sample is inside the noise of an idle Windows desktop. It is not evidence that anything improved. The run is published because the procedure ran correctly, not because the result is meaningful. Full published run.
Do not quote this figure as a Lacksan performance claim. It is a single sample from an experimental run and the published post says so explicitly.