The last few paragraphs of Ch. 7: Appendix II: Further illustration of the purpose and the effects of informant classification are as follows, at the moment.
(The formatting is lost.)

***
　　The practice in the field seems to be based on the concession that we cannot obtain definite and categorical experimental results. This seems to have led to the reliance on "statistically significant contrasts in "empirically-oriented" research. If a "statistically significant contrast" suffices as evidence, however, the contrast between the %(Y) on Schema A and that on Schema B in the initial result of EPSA [5]-1 would qualify as such. As we have observed in this Appendix, informant classification did not lower the %(Y) on Schema B and the %(I) in EPSA [5]-1 close to the predicted 0, unlike English EPSA [33]-10 and Japanese EPSA [33]-9, for example.
　　There is no guarantee that a given "contrast" we observe is a reflection of a hypothesized grammatical principle/condition/etc. Only with careful improvement of the experimental device, in the form of successively rigorous informant classification as discussed in this book, can we expect to obtain a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry. And only when we do so, we can have some hope that the observed "contrast," now in the form of a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry, rather than a mere (but "statistically significant") contrast, is indeed a reflection of hypothesized properties of the CS.
　　This has far-reaching implications with regard to how we can try to accumulate knowledge of our subject matter whose underlying properties we can investigate only by means of abstract theorizing and by means of experiments focusing on informant reactions or something else that we can observe but can be related only indirectly to the hypothesized properties about the subject matter. See the remarks at the end of Chapter 8.