I don't see how the primary can be pinched, indeed, but the secondary can still be warped quite easily by attaching it badly to its support. You'd think that by now you'd expect the Chinese manufacturers to know to attach secondaries with three small silicone blobs to the support, but no -- it appears there's no gap at all between the stalk and the mirror.
Also, it's quite possible that the centre support isn't behaving as it should -- you'd expect them to have that central cylinder supporting the mirror evenly in the central hole, but it's hard to tell whether that was actually OK.
If the mirror was still cooling, then there could also be some spherical aberration components, or really weird things if the mirror wasn't cooled symmetrically. That, too, is a bit of an unknown, and these mirror structures are more prone to these kinds of problems (it's really hard to heat up one side of a mirror by accident when it's a big slab of glass, but easier when it looks like that mirror.)
I don't remember the test protocol exactly, or whether they tested the primary separately (and if so, in what orientation).
I'd have to reread it, but it's sometimes hard to guess the exact protocol used, especially with these exotic mirrors.
Of course, the only proof of good optics would be a test delivering a good result ;-). There are many things that can go wrong, but no way to get it right with a bad mirror.
Edited by sixela, 26 October 2016 - 07:59 PM.