So he does. They grade them on 'their assessment of performance'.
Now if GM's assessment of performance is based on looks, then that's fine.
If it isn't, then why the discrepancy between what Edward says (graded on performance) and what their catalogue shows (graded on looks)?
It's either one or the other, isn't it? Unless GM believe the better looking the bat, the better the performance? Which we generally all believe is just not the case.
I'm beginning to think it's all a bit smoke and mirrors, frankly.