1. “Whether it is reasonable for Commerce to use a statistical test in a manner inconsistent with the limitations on the methodology described by the methodology’s creator and relevant academic literature, and without any mathematical, logical, or empirical explanation why such a method may properly be used in the manner Commerce proposes?”
2. “Whether it is reasonable for Commerce to use a methodology that Commerce itself admits may fail to correctly identify whether price differences are ‘significant,’ when the statute requires a finding whether price differences are ‘significant,’ and when an incorrect finding that price differences for specific sales are ‘significant’ necessarily distorts the count of the total number of sales with ‘significant’ price differences (for purposes of Commerce’s ‘Ratio Test’) and, as a consequence, the results of Commerce’s ‘differential pricing analysis’?”
3. “Whether the overall number of cases in which the results were affected by Commerce’s use of its ‘differential pricing analysis’ can, in a vacuum, demonstrate the reasonableness of that methodology, when there is no evidence as to how many cases actually satisfied the relevant statutory criteria?”
4. “Whether rules-of-thumb supported by observations of the heights of teenaged girls and the IQs of different types of students provide a universal yardstick for determining whether observed price differences are ‘large,’ when the prices are not set based on heights or IQs, and the distribution of prices is not the same as the distribution of heights and IQs?”
