No disagreement, that's why I only use the real ones and don't advocate that others use anything but the real ones either.

We could reframe the question, though -- if you didn't have a CoTCCC recommended tourniquet with you (Let's say because of expense, you could only budget for one or two and they're in the car or at home), or exhausted your supply, and have to improvise, what are you going to use?

Non CoTCCC recommended tourniquet that you happen to also have (like SWAT-T)? What about a Crevat and stick? Blood pressure cuff that might leak air slowly? 550 cord that we know will cause lasting damage? A belt that can't get tight enough and we have to hold onto? All could work to save someone's life, but may not. The question isn't "is a knockoff tourniquet as good as the real deal" the question might be: is it better than whatever improvised tourniquet you'll use instead?

Amazon reviews are hard to go by because of those 1,800+ people almost 0 of them have used them in a life or death situation as you point out.

It's possible the Recon Tourniquet has fundamental flaws that makes it even worse than improvising a tourniquet. It's also possible that the Recon Tourniquet is as good or even better than a CAT, which itself has seen 7 generations of changes and improvements... we just don't know. The catch 22 is it's very difficult to introduce a new tourniquet to the market because of liability, and institutions want to go with what is proven through years (if not decades) of real world use, which means they aren't going to take a chance on something new (why would they?). It's a chicken and egg situation. Nobody will use the new ones until they're proven in the field, but how can they be proven in the field if nobody uses them?

I would always advise to go with what's proven because I certainly don't want to be the guinea pig (if I can help it!), but that's of course up to an individual to make their own decision once they consider the available information.