Once again you refer to a University CASE STUDY not written by...

Once again you refer to a University CASE STUDY not written by the Colorado Department of Transport at all.

ROTFL.The case study was commissioned by CDOT. it was intended to provide some much needed credibility to EDE claims. The paper has so many caveats that no engineer would be impressed.

You said of that case study "The CDOT paper has zero citations which suggests it has little scientific value."

I stand by that. The paper was of no real scientific value and published in a junk journal. The study and trial was obviously based on political influence with CDOT.

Indeed you constantly dismiss any scientific document referenced on ScienceDirect.

Science Direct is nothing more than an index of published papers.

CDOT normally publishes extremely comprehensive (100+ page) Value Engineering Reports on projects like this after two years. The Edencrete engineering study is conspicuously absent. Instead we just have some anonymous bureaucratic waffle telling us Edencrete is wonderful.
https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/valueengineering/cdot-ve-reports/

IMO the CDOT engineers wanted nothing to do with Edencrete. They chose a quiet road to pour the test slabs. They used some engineering students to create the (less than enthusiastic) case study. They didn't do an engineering evaluation. Finally CDOT submitted a brief anonymous testimonial designed for public consumption and of no value to engineers. Classic avoidance and buck passing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speer_Boulevard