So based on this, the explanation given is that standard fitting rationales like NL2 are static and predictable, but a proprietary fitting rationale from an HA mfg is most likely (or can be) dynamic and therefore may not give predictable and repeatable results then?
Is there a reason why the standard ones are static but the proprietary ones can (and likely) be dynamic? What are the pluses and minuses between these 2 types of rationales?
Obviously for REM test, a fixed/static rationale that is predictable and repeatable is better because you don’t want the target gain to change all over the map then. Is that why @Neville in an earlier post was saying that mfgs typically recommend verifying against NL2 for their proprietary algorithms? Because doing REM against their (most likely) dynamic rationales is really not optimal?