Not at all. You on the other hand refuse to concede the possibility that the balls were simply mishit.
Of course we can agree that the balls which went to the right of center were not center pocket. Stan's pockets are 4.25" or less. A ball traveling over the center would have 1.125" on each side. which leaves 1" of margin. So yes from the perspective of the shot line over center pocket the ball deviates by about 1". However you call that throw and the fact is that a TINY shift at contact is enough to create a vector that results in a one inch deviation for that shot. The fact is that you would need far more shots done with video from several angles to identify whether the shots were mishit or thrown.
OK now we are getting somewhere, maybe. Of course in a dispassionate review of the situation one of the possibilities is that the balls were "mishit" or let's say pocketed with some slop, imprecision, whatever you want to call it. Does that idea hold water? Here's my thought on it:
1. Stan is a player who is so accurate you are willing to bet $100,000 on him. Stan is a pro level player who did another video shooting 9 out of 10 shots into a 2.5 inch pocket.
2. Stan hit four balls. Two hard and two soft. The two soft shots are dead center pocket to the extent you could superimpose one ball over the other just about perfectly. Same with the hard hit shots. They both careen into the pocket just about brushing the right facing. It does not seem likely that these are random mishits. Given Stan's expertise the odds of four randomly aimed balls resulting in two sets of superimposed balls is very low.
3. The cue ball hits the foot rail in about identical spots for the soft and hard hits. This means the cue ball contacted the ob at the same point each time, confirming that the soft shots were identical to each other as were the hard shots.
4. Stan repeatedly says he kept all variables the same except for speed. Taken at his word, then the result is exactly what we would expect. Balls hit harder throw less, which is the result we see in the video. If Stan does everything identically except for speed, he is not immune to the laws of physics. Throw happens to everybody.
5. In 20 years of Hal and Stan promoting CTE there has never once been evidence offered as proof for the various claims. You even said we should give Stan the benefit of the doubt. That's not science. Stan has had an opportunity for many years to provide any proof at all that balls do not throw differently when using CTE. He made one video in 2017 attempting to demonstrate this (still not proof, actually) and he managed to show the exact opposite.
Given the above it seems to be reaching to say that Stan is immune from physics and his shots would normally all enter the pocket in the same place, except in this case he got a case of the wobblies and couldn't pocket a ball clean.
Yes, more than two trials would be nice but we have to work with what is available. In statistics, the greater the difference between data sets the fewer trials are needed to find statistical significance. In other words, if the shooter is dead accurate then it doesn't take very many tries to show that the 1 inch difference between soft and hard is a real thing. In fact, at Stan's level of play just the two trials might be conclusive.
Regarding the test subject.....sure I agree that knowledge of what's being measured can influence the performance. But you still haven't proven your point based on the limited data. You want to assign motivation to Stan without also giving the benefit of the doubt. You also mischaracterized what he said. He did NOT say that contact induced throw is not a thing. He merely said that he didn't need to account for it on those shots. Now, that said I don't have ANY PROBLEM with looking at CIT and CTE together and figuring out what conditions might results in throw needing to be adjusted for and how much adjustment off of the given shot line might be needed.
Sorry, but no. Stan has flat out claimed numerous times that throw is not a variable for CTE because of the over cut. He never said throw is variable and needs to be adjusted for. His reply (3 years later) to my analysis is that his aim was off a little, so sue him. In other words, the balls did not throw any more or any less with speed even though every other variable was fixed, according to him. I know you don't believe this, either, so you are trying to say that Stan doesn't really mean that or never really said that. He did, sorry.