Prefer WSU for distinguishing preference, difference, and diagnostic questions; AWRI for the two-coded-sample forced-choice procedure and response-count interpretation; and Sipos et al. 2025, PDF p. 4, for forced-choice limits and the absence of magnitude. ASTM may be cited as official background.
A paired preference test can determine whether a defined target population significantly prefers one of two products, but it does not measure preference magnitude, test sensory difference, or establish equivalence when no preference is shown.
Verified 2026-08-29 against four independent references: ASTM's public record as background, WSU's institutional method categories, AWRI's paired-preference procedure, and the open-access peer-reviewed Sipos et al. review. The paid ASTM text is not required for the claim as written.
The full ASTM E2263-25 standard was not accessed. Do not state exact sample-size, respondent-selection, administration, or statistical requirements without consulting the standard.
Preference, detectability, description, and similarity are distinct response questions. Treating them as interchangeable would overstate what a paired preference result can show.
Publication-stage validation completed 2026-08-29. Eight verified paraphrase Excerpts and four Ready Chicago citations support the claim; no direct quotation is stored.
Basis
ASTM E2263-25's public scope defines paired preference as a hedonic two-product method for a specified target population and states important limits on interpretation.
Current judgment
The claim is Supported at high confidence for the scope-level distinction. Evidence strength remains Moderate because the paid procedural standard was not accessed.
Drafting guardrail
Do not interpret a nonsignificant preference result as proof of equivalence, and do not use paired preference as a substitute for a difference, descriptive, or similarity test.