rog, read the two, actually three including me, posts above you. en ratings are specifically designed to handle the variation of body temps etc, for you, probably, you sleep warm. The purpose of the en rating is to let you compare bags with some hope of accuracy. For example you can take the low comfort rating and say, my experience shows me that I sleep comfortably at that temperature, so most bags with en ratings in that low comfort range should be in the ballpark for me. The high comfort rating allows a cold sleeper to say, my experience shows me that the high rating is what I need to use. That is why en works, and work it does.
I'm not saying it's incorrect as you said I wrote, how can I state something more explicitly clearly? I am saying it is not the full comfort rating, but rather the low comfort rating, and i showed a chart of their actual comfort ratings to show it to readers explicitly. How can I say this in a way that it will register in a non defensive manner in someone's brain? This is just a fact, it's not an opinion.
You can see 3 people here, one after another, who had these bags and wondered why the stated rating did not correspond to reality or their experience, ie, the bags were most certainly not comfortable as rated, because wm uses the incomplete ratings listing, for reasons almost impossible to figure out given what a good company they are, the cause is what I said, it's not an opinion, it's because wm is showing the lower comfort rating as the bag rating and not showing the full en rating range. This is not a criticism of you or your experience, it's a fact, and your experience actually is another concrete demonstration of why you want access to the full ratings range data, which wm has, but does not display.
Hopefully this will help some other people avoid errors, for my case, I never had to learn it the hard way, being corrected here before I needed to know the stuff, but there is no reason for wm not to show this data, it's as I've noted, weird that they do not.
While nothing is perfect, we have these tools and we might as well use them, wm clearly has the data, unless that euro gear site payed to have the bags rated themselves, which I doubt. en is kind of like hydrostatic head for fabrics or materials, it's a standard, that is based on objective, non subjective testing, and is a useful method of comparison, I wish more of the smaller gear companies would list that type of thing.