The only thing that is special about 1x CLV scanning is that it's the original reading speed for DVD media and the one mentioned in the ECMA standards.
There's nothing about 1x scanning that makes it more "correct" than other scanning speeds. Just because CATS scanners scan at 1x doesn't mean that they somehow see the "true" quality of a disc or that scanners scanning at higher than 1x show a "false" view of the quality of a disc. It only means that CATS scanners are following certain standards defined years ago.
There is no single "true" view of the PIE/PIF on a disc, because the PIE/PIF are not actually "on the disc" but occur only as the result of a drive reading the disc and having trouble reading everything correctly. So PIE/PIF not only reflect what's on the disc but also how the drive reading the disc is performing. Reading/scanning speed also influences the PIE/PIF occurring.
CATS scanners are of course more consistent than the consumer drives used in this article and on our forums, and they can also measure many characteristics that the consumer drives cannot measure.
Some of our users have found that high-speed PIE/PIF scanning (12x or faster) can sometimes show problems that are not seen in the low-medium scanning speeds. This doesn't mean that high-speed scanning is somehow more "correct" than low-speed scanning, but performing scans at different speeds may show a more complete picture of how a disc behaves.
Scanning a disc in multiple drives may provide an even more complete understanding of how the disc behaves.
But it all takes time of course.
It is my current opinion that 1x scanning is not only too slow to be practical for everyday use, it may also be the least useful scanning speed for some drives because it shows a "best case" scenario for many drives - not all drives however, because some modern drives may actually perform worse at the lowest speed compared to when reading at medium or high speeds.
The article shows different drives scanning at different speeds, and those speeds are in common use on our forums which makes the comparison both valid and useful. Using a 1x scanning speed would have been counter-productive in the sense that almost no home user would bother using such a slow scanning speed.
This subject is much more complex than just scanning a disc at 1x in one drive and then knowing "everything" about the quality of that disc!