Blind or double blind tests related to bicycles are intriguing, mostly for their rarity and counterintuitive outcomes, at times.
Jan Heine has one of the few other double blind tubing tests I've found. The full article is more in depth but the blog post has the relevant info:
https://www.renehersecycles.com/what-is-planing/
The Magnificent 7 test is most interesting due to it's size and structure. Had the test used statistical experimental methods to construct trial(s) in a different way it would have been possible to achieve a more concrete process-outcome.
As Alan Coté stated, he felt his decisions were essentially random; which was due to the essentially random experimental design.
A more outcome focused design for the experiment would be to bracket the bikes against each other matched to the largest expected marginal differences.
Round 1
Aelle v Cromor
Determine ride feel, "winner" advance
Brain v EL-OS
Determine ride feel, "winner" advance
Thorn v SLX
Determine ride feel, "winner" advance
Neuron - BYE
So then round 2 would be
Aelle v SLX
Determine ride feel, "winner" advance
Brain v Neuron
Determine ride feel, "winner" advance
round 3
SLX v Neuron
So the outcome presents the differences in a meaningful way. For trial 1 of 12 rides of the 7 different bikes. And then of course, the experimenter could take these results and determine the structure of trial 2 to develop a theory of the choices "regressing to the mean" and if they are or were becoming truly random. Other riders could be run through the original and subsequent trial brackets as well to determine a consensus or individual preference weight.
This is not to denigrate Coté but to illustrate how the experimental design constrained his outcome to be less useful than it otherwise could have been.