It doesn't need a wait-and-see. It just needs the ongoing discussion to be fair. People want to compare current framerate with final. That makes sense because if current framerate is same as PS2, that's not a problem. And if it isn't, we can wait and see whether the framerate gets there or not while speculating on whether it will or won't.
The problem is people are being very wishy-washy with their use of framerate, and different people are using different measures which favour their position. If you want to take PS2's lowest at 25 fps, then compare the port's current lowest. If you want to use a median, then compare DC's current median framerate to PS2, which is 30 fps using the DF video as source. The measurements have be fair and the same thing.
The video included two games. One was mostly 29 fps, the other sub 25 fps. As you claimed GTA fell below 25 fps all the time, davis.anthony felt you must have been referring to the VC part of the video as that game, not GTA, constantly ran below 25 fps. Then the silly back-and-forth with you two not understanding that the other guy couldn't understand your point.
Neither of you respected the other enough to question their own position and make an effort to get to know exactly where they were coming from.
I'm going to ask for clarification on this statement you made because it confuses me:
I see about 80 seconds of GTA footage. With the framerate changing once per second, there are I think 2 seconds of below 25 fps, and the vast majority of framerate counter is at 28 or 29 fps. That's 1/40th of the time below 25 fps where you asserted it falls below 25 fps all the time. It we measure framerate at or below 25 fps, it's still only about 5 seconds out of 80. I cannot reconcile the evidence you presented with your interpretation of that evidence.
Can you please explain your interpretation of the video or in some other way revisit your statement so we can get on to the same page in regards PS2's framerate so we can fairly compare it to the DC port's?