Oy, veh; that abstract is a mess, even given that IANAphysicist. For instance, I'm thinking that "the counterintuitive result has been obtained that a neutron is" can be replaced by "a neutron can be".
Language matters; if your writing is unnecessarily dense and confusing, your ideas are probably the same, you just don't know it yet.
Is that not provided elsewhere by the report? I'm not against precision of language, and I don't think parent's example was the best, but over-specificity is often a bastion of people who are not sure what they are saying.
"This is not necessarily a detail of relevance, and it is duplicated in the data, but I noticed it and am remarking on it to show that I did not fail to notice this, even if it does not seem to have material importance to this experiment, whose audience should be able to interpret the data for themselves and understand this. However, I have written this to the limit of length and parsable complexity, yet it cannot be said whether I have overstated or understated anything. I am the James Joyce of science, and I justify this part of my value through superficial prolixity."
I blame all those years of 1000-word and 5-paragraph essays.
"can be" implies that sometimes a neutron is is measured and sometimes it's not measured, but I don't think that is something the paper is trying to say.
I noticed something like this in another domain earlier today. The writing was so obtuse. Before sharing I had to edit the quote and make it more direct.
Language matters; if your writing is unnecessarily dense and confusing, your ideas are probably the same, you just don't know it yet.