My background is a biologist who's actually done these kinds of tests (although testing for things other than gluten), researched quite a bit on gluten testing and given informal advice to breweries in the UK about gluten-free beer.
Our digestive systems are full of thousands of different types of bacterias and enzymes found naturally in our bodies, clarity Ferm is not one of them
Let's have some perspective here - beer and chocolate have thousands of chemicals not found in our bodies, we still consume them. ClarityFerm is effectively doing the same job as our digestive enzymes, and it's purified from a fungus that is widely present in the environment, you will have breathed it in and eaten it on fruit. On a scale of things to worry about, ClarityFerm is probably a 2 out of 10 - things like beans, potatoes and celery are significantly more dangerous, like 6-8 out of 10.
The testing methods only look for "gluten" and not the substances that make up gluten. So if the chemical bonds are broken and the substances are no longer chained together to form gluten where did the go? They are still present individually and the gluten tests are useless. They need to revise the testing methods for gluten and not only look for the gluten protein itself but for the substances that make up gluten to.
Simply not true, you're 5-10 years out of date, at least for the current state of the art in the UK. The old sandwich test that only "saw" whole gluten molecules was only in use for a fairly short time and is not used any more in the UK AFAIAA. I've seen the test certificates from an independent lab, enzyme-treated beer had <10ppm gluten when tested with the "new" competitive ELISA that "sees" fragments of gluten as well as the whole molecule. The competitive ELISA is cheaper and quicker, and is specified in international standards, so there's no reason for anyone to use the test that only tests for intact gluten.
And the test is not an indirect one, it is testing directly for the main antigens that cause problems. So if the test comes up clean, that represents a real reduction in risk. That's not to say it's 100% - coelic disease covers a complex of different reactions, many of which are not well characterised. So people with genuine medical reactions to "gluten" should always be wary of labels, and experiment to see what they're OK with and what not. We're all unique as individuals.
At the same time coeliac disease is pretty rare. In the UK for every coeliac there are 10 people trying to live a gluten-free life for more general health reasons. <20ppm beer is aimed at those kinds of people. And to be honest, you don't even need enzymes for that. A number of breweries have tested lagers and golden ales brewed "normally" without trying to be gluten-free and found that they were under 20ppm gluten. But they've chosen not to go through the cost and hassle of getting formally certified, not least because of the prevalance of draught here - a brewery can only guarantee GF-ness as far as delivery, it's hard for them to control for eg gluten pick-up from dirty lines.
So the non-coeliac GFers have more options than they think - obviously malt-led beers like stouts have more gluten, but if a golden ale or lager is clear then it may well have <20ppm gluten or not much more. Clearly genuine coeliacs can't take that risk, but it does mean there's more options for other GFers than they might think.