Thanks.
I had read those ones, and thought you had something new. For now, while not discounting both reports, I am not taking them too seriously. Imaging resource make it clear they are not able to properly judge the RAW files until ACR offers support.
Similarly, the Techradar report relies on analyzing files converted to TIFF.
It may well be that these results will demonstrate DR no better than earlier M4/3 sensors, but I will wait and see a full RAW analysis before judging. I will say though that it seems odd that it produces jpegs judged as being better than all but the GH2, and rivalling the EOS60D without having better DR. These jpegs are developed in-camera from RAW, so this would infer that the RAW files offer very good DR and resolution.
We shall see. If the RAW files are no better than the earlier sensors, then the camera is of much less interest to me.