Your repeated deviation from the term dimpling isn't helping your case. It makes it seem like you're screaming louder and louder, using more and more pejorative terms to try and convince people who don't agree with you.

The only thing clear from the hardness test is there is a difference in the measured hardness. The test says NOTHING about the cause of the difference in hardness, nor does it account for vertical ball speed across various games as a factor in dimpling.

Please supply evidence supporting your assertions: 1)Stern has done a poor job maintaining quality and testing and 2)Stern has cheaped out in this area of manufacturing

Without the appropriate sample size you cannot determine 'the average'. Nor have you determined the variance in dimple sizes due to any difference in playfield hardness as opposed to other factors like vertical ball speed.

I would really like to see the dimple sizes ACCURATELY measured on some of these playfields that are generating complaints. By my calculations using http://planetcalc.com/1421/ your standard 1.0625"/26.9875 mm pinball creates the following depth of dimple:
4 mm wide dimple = 0.149 mm deep
5 mm wide dimple = 0.234 mm deep
6 mm wide dimple = 0.338 mm deep
7 mm wide dimple = 0.462 mm deep
8 mm wide dimple = 0.607 mm deep
9 mm wide dimple = 0.774 mm deep
Even if we find examples of dimples of those widths I argue we don't have evidence it's because anyone is lackadaisical in either their manufacturing or quality control. It's a tiny difference in depth that can be explained by other factors such as vertical ball speed.
Furthermore, what if we measure a 9 mm dimple and it's not as deep as calculated? Could be several dimples grouped together that now appear to be one wider dimple. You might expect to find that if you have an airball that lands in the same location repeatedly.

It's not damage unless it affects the ball travel. Otherwise it's just visually unappealing to a vocal minority.
Measure the depth and then discuss if they are damage or not.

Maybe they have standards and the playfields meet them. We don't have any evidence to the contrary.

All you need to justify your beliefs is some evidence to support them. How old are trees being used to make plywood today compared to trees 30 years ago? What is the difference in hardness between the wood from those trees?

Just looks like two different kinds of wood. Pine and maybe cherry? Probably not even old/new growth, the text reads like some scare-mongering political garbage.

How hard was the wood on the other machines and how deep were the dimples?

How hard is the wood on your new Sterns and how deep are the dimples?

What is the width & depth of a huge crater? What is the width & depth of a giant crater?