I think you've got the wrong Bob here--I'm a trial attorney who's spent four decades going after corporations for defective products and catastrophic injuries, not managing hull coatings on boats. My battleground is the courtroom, not the marina. That said, I've learned one thing from taking on companies like GM, Toyota, and Ford: documentation wins cases. If you're trying to prove a biofouling tactic worked during that two-week idle, you need baseline measurements before the idle period and comparison data after. In product liability cases, we use telemetry logs, maintenance records, and expert analysis to show exactly when and how something failed--or in your case, worked. Same principle applies to hull performance. My team recently worked a Ford BlueCruise case where sensor calibration records made the difference between a settlement and a fight. The maintenance logs showed the system wasn't performing to spec, and that became our smoking gun. For your hull question, keep a log of fuel consumption, speed-over-ground data, or underwater photos at fixed intervals. That's your evidence when someone questions whether the tactic actually worked. The boring answer is usually the right one: measure, document, repeat. Whether it's a car sensor or a boat hull, proof beats promises every time.