Ramadan Mubarak to all!
There is one pernicious falsehood which unfortunately is the source of many disagreements in how to appreciate oud oils, which is that 'smell is subjective'.
If smell is subjective, then all noses are equal, all smells are equal (since their value is in the nose of the beholder) and statements such as 'good smelling' or 'bad smelling' lose all their meaning. In this realm of absurdity, the poorest quality plantation oil can theoretically and actually be better than a high quality wild oil; or, the clay model of a child can surpass the most revered statues of the Buddha.
To quote a German philosopher: 'Relativism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favour of this reduction itself. Fundamentally it consists in propounding the claim that there is no truth as if this were truth or in declaring it to be absolutely true that there is nothing but the relatively true; one might just as well say that there is no language or write that there is no writing.'
It is not that smell lacks subjectivity, it is that it is not totally subjective. There is also an objective hierarchy to which we can turn - such is the basis for classification of grades of wood and also for the evaluation of oils. It is also the basis of an educational curriculum, should someone wish to train their nose in this science. If we admit that there is an objectivity to smells, then we admit to expertise and a learning curve. If that is admitted, then there are teachers, there are better noses, and better oils.
This is not to deny the subjective component of smelling, which is greater in scent than in visual art, for instance. The above was simply written because I have often seen this statement - 'scent is subjective' - with no qualification whatsoever, and taken as the starting point for undermining the objective value of an oil.
In the oud market, there is a large gulf between the knowledge and expertise of distillers and that of connoisseurs. Surely, years of being on site for distillation and selection of the wood has an enormous effect on one's ability to evaluate the quality of the final product. It is conceivable that even the finest appreciation of a connoisseur will miss certain nuances, such as changes in particular distillation parameters. If we take this as true, then there is a degree of reliance on the distiller's expertise in how we evaluate oils - not a total reliance of course, but the reliance that any student has on a teacher.
In my personal experience, it took a very long study of Taha's Kalyani to really see what was meant by the oleoresin in relation to other auxiliary notes. I followed the curriculum, and I believe that I learned from it. Certainly my nose now confirms a lot of what especially Ensar and Taha have written about their oils.
One can trust the authority, one can distrust the authority - that is a matter of personal evaluation. The general consensus of this forum is to trust particular authorities, and move forward with that.
As for what you have written
@Alkhadra regarding 'Sidi', either you are unaware of its provenance or you misunderstand it - it is a practice common to certain North African
turuq to address a person with his theomorphic or fullest capacity in mind - you may still have your objection but it has nothing to do with Ensar.