I will answer to your points, one per post, to keep things clearly separated.
There's a few things that are inaccurate here. First is the "Ground rules" statement referred to my inability to give hard numbers, not to test protocol. This is an important point and at the time I was aware of no one who was confused by that statement or I would have clarified it.
It was indeed extremely ambiguous because, we (as the community) could not care less if you respected your agreement with BFL, and could not care more if you did not respect your agreement with us.
What the "the ground rules that were set forth PRIOR to the test" refer to is a question of context.
If you were answering to BFL, it would make sense that the above would refer to your agreement with them.
And if you were answering to the community (which was the case here), it was only logical that the ground rules would refer to our agreement on the experimental conditions.