A trained panel would yield much less applicable results, IMO.
What?!?
I must be misunderstanding / misinterpreting what you're saying because on face value this is complete crazy-talk!
Of course a trained panel yields much better results. Your panel is your measuring "instrument" in this case; a better trained and calibrated panel means a more accurate instrument and a more ACCURATE result.
If the differences in your results are below the taste threshold of your participants, that doesn't mean that there's not a difference.
Having said all that the results from actual calibrated and experience tasting panels, referenced in the study I linked to largely agree with you when it comes to a certain level on fresh beers. -On aged beers the results seem to flip.
The other major issue here is that when people jump to major conclusions as a result: "trub doesn't matter, just pass it all" -they're going to reach a point at which it DOES matter. It also matters more on high gravity / ABV beers and when in other fermentation conditions that also produce higher levels of fusol alcohols.
-Brewing a high gravity all grain beer and pitch a high gravity belgian strain, over oxygenate with an oxygen stone, add too much yeast nutrient and ferment a bit on the high side and you'll have a fusol alcohol mess. High trub levels would be one of the things helping to drive that fusol alcohol production.
Everything in balance.
Higher trub levels / fatty acid levels DO increase fusol alcohol production and DO decrease ester production; that's not really in question, what's in question is whether in the conditions that you brewed your beers in whether it really made a noticable "difference" and whether additional process, time or equipment is "worth it" to reduce the trub.
The answer that we get from the result of the experiment is that "it depends" and high trub levels driving up fusol alcohol production and down ester production might not be a big deal and wasn't in the conditions of the experiment. -When people jump to the conclusion that "trub creating problems downstream in my beer isn't an issue": that's when we have bad science and bad practice and we create new home brewing myths that take us back a step.
-Very similar to the huge leaps people have made with Hot Side Aeration: "HSA doesn't exist; it's a myth; feel free to do dumb things that maximize wort oxygenation -nothing bad will happen". -HSA exists, just like increased fusol alcohol production and increased rate of beer staling when high trub levels exist, it's just that it isn't an issue to be over concerned with under normal practices and for typical beers. (You go overboard because you believe it to be a "myth" and the problem comes back with a vengeance.)
A great experiment, I'm glad you did it. As long as people understand the constraints and don't leap to grossly exaggerated conclusions, they'll be fine.
Unfortunately there's already a "holy war" with people picking sides of this argument looking for further justification to their very black and white view of the issue.
Adam