I definitely don’t disagree, and I can appreciate how useful that is for a developer. I see and agree with all your points about bit-comparison being used to determine that files are either identical or not, but that seems to be about as much as the technique can reveal, and I would like to think that this use should be easy to work out from first principles.
What I'm trying to say is that kabal4e's comment that most samples were bit-identical *is* useful. It tells me that the change I made to fix a corner case indeed only impacts corner cases because the majority of the time it's not triggered at all. That *is* more useful than "no audible difference". There's comparing quality and there's "let's figure out what's going on here". Let's not confuse the two.
To sum up, I couldn't ABX the difference, track gains identical, slight full track peak difference, up to 50% sample values exactly matching, and max difference between sample values was 0.25. That's why I said there was no difference.
The main thing is that I never said I used only bit-comparison tool for tracks comparison. Will try to attach the ABX report in the future, however, in case a person desperately wants to proove some point, what stops him from faking the ABX-log?