The thing is 'COSC' and 'chronometer' have very specific meanings. It's quite the opposite in your case. Your lack of proper understanding of COSC allows you to feel good about a technically inferior movement. Just like all the 'COSC spec' Seiko 5s on here. *Rollseyes*Having read this entire thread I have the following comments:
1. Archer is a legend around here and his knowledge and advice is always solid. He has always been very accurate in what he says and it's backed by a ton of training and knowledge and real experience. Trying to pick apart his statements and argue with him about something that he knows about so well, seems silly to me. Unless the point is just to troll the thread.
2. If you have a mechanical watch that keeps time within COSC daily rate on the wrist, does anything else really matter? My speedy pro is not a chronometer but Archer got it running to +3 per day, on the wrist. Do I care if it would pass several other COSC tests? Am I traveling to Antarctica or the Sahara? No. I think sometimes people get hung up on the status of having a chronometer and get upset if someone has a watch that is not a chronometer that runs within COSC timing on the wrist...so it becomes really important to say their chronometer is still "better". BTW my speedy is not a chronometer but it runs +3 per day and could take a trip to the moon and back. So there. ;-)
Archer is supposed to be a professional and should know better about improperly using 'COSC'. If proper definitions are used, we won't have the continued babblings of 'COSC Spec!' $50 movement watches...
Back to the Sellita issue, didn't Zenith announce they will be using them?