The record
In October 1976 the CTFA issued its Method J4-1, whose own introduction stated that transmission electron microscopy with selected area diffraction offers greater sensitivity but was not adopted because it was “unsuitable for normal quality control application.”
Claim scope
The J4-1 method document itself, dated October 1976, conceding on its face that a more sensitive method existed and was not adopted. This is the cleanest available quotation of the central fact.
What this source does not establish
The stated reason is practicality/QC-suitability, not a stated intent to avoid detection. The intent evidence is separate (see the Ingham 'worldwide company interests' quotation).
Limitations
McNeal is the most valuable opinion in this set for timeline purposes because the court sets out the internal documents in an explicitly dated month-by-month chronology (headings 'a. August 1971' through 's. May 1977'). CRITICAL COUNTERWEIGHT: the court REVERSED the punitive damages award, holding the same evidence did not establish malice, oppression or fraud. Any use of McNeal must carry that disposition. The documents are verified as recounted; the culpability inference was rejected by this court.
Source
Case Citation — McNeal v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, No. B313472 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Div. 8, July 5, 2022) (published; reporter cite UNVERIFIED)