Comparing the performance of two pistol rounds to the 5.56 is absurd. The operate on different principles. It's like testing the performance of a car running on hay! They know better than that.
More than that, it sounds like they deliberately tested other than the round in question, possibly after first running tests to find out how they could turn in a negative report. The NIH [N/ot I/nvented H/ere] problem with flawed evaluations being given until the manufacturer wises up and puts a retired ordnance officer on the staff to *streamline* the acceptance process is an old one, and it looks like it's business as usual in that respect.
My own experience with the stuff has been limited; but I've got one pal who's very knowledgable and experienced, and he swears by the RBCD 9mm and 38 Super loadings- enough so that I got all his remaining Winchester SXT and M882 9mm 115-grain ball amnmo, which runs just fine in my old Browning GP.
I'd hardly be surprised if a lightweight bullet gives massive expansion and maximum tissue disruption, I've been down that path since pushing 80-grain Super Vel hollowpoint bullets meant for the .380 autopistol at 1200 and 1500 FPS back in the early 1970s. The question is if hollowpoints so constructed can also stay intact long enough to effect deep wound channels and if the rifle bullets are equally effective. The anectdotal reports are encouraging, and if they offer such a load for the .30 US carbine that offers such results, it'll sell like tasty hotcakes. We shall see.