I appreciate the time you've put in to that article, especially the illustrations, but I still have one major concern, openness/auditability. The COSC, for all it's flaws, the Geneva Seal Org and the QF certs are all given by an organization outside the watch company, a third party. To a degree they are all auditable, COSC even publishes annual reports on how many watches were submitted, and how many of each brand passed.
This second, and more problematic, issue is that of the standards. The verious other certs/seals are acknoledgements that the piece follows some defined, publicly available, standards of function, finish or both. On their webpages for the Patek seal, I can find vague platitudes about quality and accuracy eg. "The appearance of all watch components is systematically assessed throughout the entire manufacturing process. Finished watches are subject to 100% scrutiny." The accuracy part sounds quite good, -3+2 is a very high standard, but there's no indication of if that is average, if temprature is taken into consideration, etc. I would not accuse Patek of this, but how does one know that their watch adhered to a standard if you don't know the specifics of the standard and it is certified by the vendor (would you trust microsoft if they said "Our software is certified bug-free as prt the MS bug-free standard")
I'm neither pro nor anti the Patek seal, but I am pro information, and with the seal Patek has removed some information from the field.
A