Once again, the leaps of logic are amazing.
First, those tests, like you say, detect androgens, so they are somewhat non-specific for testosterone, and all AAS in the blood stream will increase the levels (this is not 1:1).
I'm not sure how this in any way "debunks" the supposed "need" to use above-gram dosages of AAS, or that these high doses are somehow "bullshit". Gains made on steroids are dose-dependent, period. They are also dependent on training, diet, genetics, and a million other variables, but when considering just this one variable in isolation, muscular hypertrophy and strength increases are absolutely dose-dependent with relation to AAS usage.
Certainly a person can understand that you can achieve supraphysiologic levels of androgens by administering exogenous steroids to elicit said effect.
You praise primobolan for its "potency" as an androgen, then also praise the ease at which you recover from it. Well which is it? The two statements are mutually exclusive.
You then go on to assert, based on a completely failed attempt at logical persuasion, that "primo really is the optimum steroid."
Not to mention that the 100mg/wk of testosterone is completely relevant and significant to these findings. 100mg/wk is commonly prescribed for upper-range testosterone replacement therapy, and provides the anabolic benefit necessary to distinguish a male athlete from a female (rather substantial, many would agree).
Seriously, this isn't even pseudoscience.
I'm not sure what you fell is illogical. It sounds like you're just looking for an argument. My point is, a mild steroid like Primo will also raise T -- not as much as straight T, but you don;t ned an insane elevation to get the benefits as long as you're getting the nitrogen retention. What's illogical?