I read their accelerated test chapter and it only confirmed many of the suspicions I have. The have come up with very complete tests for dark and light fading, and some very interesting ideas. But they miss what I think is an abvious element present in everyday display which are atmospheric contaminants. Any gallery or houselhold will have some chemicals which are widely used and can in some measure permeate into the print and cause further chemical reactions.
The formation of free radicals is a well known process in chemistry and is known as one of the major causes of chemical degradation. The most widely known example is the ozone layer. In a household or gallery many chemicals are used which under the right circumstances can produce free radicals. To name a few, ammonia for glass cleaning, floor wax, etc, etc. Making a light accelerated test under tightly controlled lab conditions with the absence of these pollutants is like cooking a dish and failing to put spices to give it flavor. A little bit goes a long way and significantly changes the final reults.
Sure a print might last 100 or 200 years according to their interpolation when exposed to ligh under tightly controlled humidity and pollution controls, but once is out in the "real" world we find it fades in only a few years, I fail to understand why under the real life data these people fail to see why their tests are innaccurate.
Given a little bit of data massage any result can be obtained.