ANSI had a standard for the lumen out put and the range/throw.
Perhaps a way of standardizing the run time claims in the same manner would be all that is needed.
As there are many ways of getting a light to output, with multiple stepped step downs, thermal step downs, burst modes, and so forth, is to state the cell the spec is associated with and the time at each output level claimed (As, currently, a light might be brighter on two cells but run longer on one cell, and what we see in ads is the max run time on the lowest setting with the single longer running cell, and the initial max brightness on the dual cell before step downs)
Similarly, the RANGE will step down in lock step with the lumen step downs....so the light with a advertised 10k cd at 1,000 lumens might drop to 5k cd at 500 L, and so forth.
Simple stuff like the hot spot, corona and spill beam angles would also so much to a simple interpretation of the output patterns, etc.
The barriers to implementation of all this apples and apples type info revolve around the always present competitive pressures to beat the competitions claims...and no one wants to be the guy with ads that look wimpy compared to the competition's ads....PLUS the actual ADDED TESTING that would add to the lead time and costs to market a light, the ad space devoted to specs vs other marketing propaganda/information, etc.
IE: The current limited/cherry picked spec box might take up 5- 10% of the light's ad space. An expanded spec box such as we need to be able to intelligently compare lights could conceivably triple the minimum size of the spec boxes.
Those expanded check boxes would run counter to normal advertising principles, which typically SIMPLIFY the process for joe consumer...NOT complicate it.
For example, if you are NOT a light aficionado, and just "Want a new bright light", etc...you are typically best sold with a simple set of choices to compare the features the seller WANTS compared.
Go to Sears, etc...and look at the quintessential "Good - Better - Best" sign over the three tire choices.
They might list three "specs" for each tire...the same specs....say price, tread wear warranty, and braking.
The tires get more expensive and the specs step up proportionally...so its easy to see the algorythm expected...pay more = get more...choose a tire.
They COULD list some other specs, like wet vs dry traction, handling precision, snow traction, ice traction, resistance to ozone or UV light, etc...but, they DON'T. The reason they don't is that it complicates the purchase decision by adding too many variables.
We like comparing three things or fewer at a time...its human nature.
Add variables, and we typically get a headache.
So, its NOT in the advertiser's interests to have messy ads with lots of specs...that style doesn't work well in the actual marketplace.
If a buddy asks who you think will win the baseball game....and you are not in a Fantasy League, etc...you give a simple analysis based on a superficial guess (They're home, and their ace is pitching, so they'll probably win)
That's the level most ads go for.
If they audience is INTO specs...THEN the spec box IS the ad.
They want to snswer the question with on base percentages and averages and historical trends and match-ups, and other more in depth methods.
So, if CPF was the primary consumer base...the expanded specs would be great, at least for the ones with the best specs, that day.
As CPF is NOT the primary consumer base, the flashasobers are....the expanded spec boxes would not even be interpretable let alone useful, and would just muddy the waters of the decision process.
So, I am 100% in favor of expanded test boxes, or AT LEAST providing the added info on their web site as a potentially reasonable compromise.
Perhaps a way of standardizing the run time claims in the same manner would be all that is needed.
As there are many ways of getting a light to output, with multiple stepped step downs, thermal step downs, burst modes, and so forth, is to state the cell the spec is associated with and the time at each output level claimed (As, currently, a light might be brighter on two cells but run longer on one cell, and what we see in ads is the max run time on the lowest setting with the single longer running cell, and the initial max brightness on the dual cell before step downs)
Similarly, the RANGE will step down in lock step with the lumen step downs....so the light with a advertised 10k cd at 1,000 lumens might drop to 5k cd at 500 L, and so forth.
Simple stuff like the hot spot, corona and spill beam angles would also so much to a simple interpretation of the output patterns, etc.
The barriers to implementation of all this apples and apples type info revolve around the always present competitive pressures to beat the competitions claims...and no one wants to be the guy with ads that look wimpy compared to the competition's ads....PLUS the actual ADDED TESTING that would add to the lead time and costs to market a light, the ad space devoted to specs vs other marketing propaganda/information, etc.
IE: The current limited/cherry picked spec box might take up 5- 10% of the light's ad space. An expanded spec box such as we need to be able to intelligently compare lights could conceivably triple the minimum size of the spec boxes.
Those expanded check boxes would run counter to normal advertising principles, which typically SIMPLIFY the process for joe consumer...NOT complicate it.
For example, if you are NOT a light aficionado, and just "Want a new bright light", etc...you are typically best sold with a simple set of choices to compare the features the seller WANTS compared.
Go to Sears, etc...and look at the quintessential "Good - Better - Best" sign over the three tire choices.
They might list three "specs" for each tire...the same specs....say price, tread wear warranty, and braking.
The tires get more expensive and the specs step up proportionally...so its easy to see the algorythm expected...pay more = get more...choose a tire.
They COULD list some other specs, like wet vs dry traction, handling precision, snow traction, ice traction, resistance to ozone or UV light, etc...but, they DON'T. The reason they don't is that it complicates the purchase decision by adding too many variables.
We like comparing three things or fewer at a time...its human nature.
Add variables, and we typically get a headache.
So, its NOT in the advertiser's interests to have messy ads with lots of specs...that style doesn't work well in the actual marketplace.
If a buddy asks who you think will win the baseball game....and you are not in a Fantasy League, etc...you give a simple analysis based on a superficial guess (They're home, and their ace is pitching, so they'll probably win)
That's the level most ads go for.
If they audience is INTO specs...THEN the spec box IS the ad.
They want to snswer the question with on base percentages and averages and historical trends and match-ups, and other more in depth methods.
So, if CPF was the primary consumer base...the expanded specs would be great, at least for the ones with the best specs, that day.
As CPF is NOT the primary consumer base, the flashasobers are....the expanded spec boxes would not even be interpretable let alone useful, and would just muddy the waters of the decision process.
So, I am 100% in favor of expanded test boxes, or AT LEAST providing the added info on their web site as a potentially reasonable compromise.
I didn't mean to come accross overly negative. 
