None is a loser, none is a winner. Because the test was not oriented for the purpose to promote or demote some vendor or oil. So, it is not a big issue why BD and FHI couldn't be perceived superior. Wild versus cultivated, hmmm. Again no issue at all. Wild oud has no divine and royal prerogative to always smell superior. A wild wood oil, but poorly managed and distilled, and a cultivated wood oil but artistically managed and distilled. This aspect can never be neglected, if at all wild is destined to be superior. (Though I myself vote for wild wood, but Assam Organic is there as well.) So, wild vs organic is no issue at all. This is not quantification at all, if one thinks over the format of the test. Some point of reference is always needed to brush away the haziest notions of one's cancerous and overly personalistic reviews. If at all such blind tests are to quantify, Oud Review section is the best example of tumorous growth of subjective quality ridden cells. Deconstruction of Oud oil is an extreme and worst form of quantitative approach. Qualitative approach is not to relate something with some external agents that are mostly absent in oils. If, somehow or other, we could benefit from both quantitative and qualitative approaches, I am sure it will be a great achievement. Egalitarian approach is a lullaby to evade what can be worrisome and irksome. I strongly hope that the suggestions being posted will be incorporated in Blind Test format. I am very pleased to read the posts in this thread, and am sure respected @powdernose would have saved these posts for further improvement. After all, the second phase is to be planned. Peace and cheers!