> It's commonplace for companies to send products out for review before they
> are sold to the general public, to build up a buzz around the device, though
> companies only do this when they're confident that the product they're selling
> will get a good review (whether though fair means or foul).

Fair enough (and Vecro_SP and I went through this already), but then how can it be "a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, when [...] it hasn't been sold"? How can the fact that it hasn't been sold yet cause the article to be a non-review when reviews on not yet sold hardware are possible?

> These three words change the meaning of the statements, they are not ones you
> can simply replace if you don't understand the use of when.

Hence I said "in this context". I'm aware that most oftenly "when" can not be substituted by either of those three words.

> when is more versatile than you credit it for, it's not necessarily justification in
> absolute terms, but can also be a way to change the focus in a sentence. When
> in this context only loosely links the statements

Let's get to the point: Of what semantic nature is this "loose" link created by "when" in this phrase?

> you could skip it out entirely and get back the same meaning, like this:
> "It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has
> been reviewed - not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

With this I'm afraid we're at square one again. What's the semantic connection between the part preceding and the part succeeding the dash? There is one, isn't it?

> the question is not over whether it was convincing, but rather whether it
> made sense. It does make sense to a native English speaker.

For it to make any sense there must be a semantic connection between the parts. What is it?

> The reason you're failing is because you're too hung up on the word choice.

You're mistaken. I'm hung up on the word *meaning* (i.e. its semantic function) in the specific context.

> To paraphrase the sentence with the intention in mind, you could say
> "It's a mistake to say the product is reviewed, it clearly isn't ready yet".

We're going in circles, so I have to ask again: What is the implied semantic connection between the two parts of that sentence? What's the reasoning behind putting those two phrases into one sentence, separated by a comma? I mean it's certainly not like for instance "The sun is shining, a bratwurst contains large amounts of cholesterol.", is it?

> Does this make sense now?

Unfortunately not.

> Again, if not, ask any questions you have.

Again, done. See above :-)