Ok, this must be what you are referring to. But there's a problem - 463251 and 432561 are not "consistent" at all, this is a significant variation.
In addition, your blog states the actual cultivar to be “Loa Kasa Balavu”. The only precedent we have is Lebot's papers, which shows a chemotype of 642351 for that cultivar, which is not even close to either of the ones you have claimed. His data was collected ~1989, your kava was planted ~2003, and eleven years is not enough for a somatic mutation, that's been confirmed.
Now you see why I'm confused. None of your data matches up.
These chemotype differences are in fact minor. I actually know quite a bit about kava, testing, and results. You could send a sample of kava from a part of a kava plant to a lab for testing, then send another sample in from a slightly different part of the plant a week later and get an entirely different chemotype. Kavalactone percentages vary from plant to plant, year to year, part of plant to part of plant. Furthermore, there can be slight variations in testing as well. Just like one thermometer may read 98.6, and another may read 98.8.
If sample one contains readings of 2.7 kavain, 1.9 yangonin, and 1.8 DHK, chemotype will be 432xxx. If sample number 2 reads 2.6 kavain, 1.5 DHK, 1.9 Yangonin, but also has 2.0 Methysticin, chemotype will be 4632xx. You see these are actually very close numbers, and the differences can easily be explained by testing variance, plant age, part of plant tested, and differences among individual plants, just like tomatoes from one plant can vary in sweetness from those on a plant of the exact same variety. These are also numbers from each test we have for 11 Year Waka. Your buddy Dr. Lebot can confirm that this type of variance is possible. If you don't believe my tests, send some in yourself.
As for the reported kava cultivar, Fijian kava is notoriously hard to identify by variety. They just don't care about the name the same way they do in places like Vanuatu or Hawaii. This is why retail Fijian kava is almost always simply sold as "Waka" or "Lawena". Take that and combine it with dialects of different communities and word of mouth travelling from island to island with no formal record thousands of years ago, and you can see how there is a possibility that somewhere along the line, someone was told the name of a kava that wasn't correct. That could very well be true for the sample in Dr. Lebot's book. In any case a .1 or .2 here or there would make the 11 Year Waka the same as what is reported by Dr. Lebot. It's also worth noting that Dr. Lebot reported his chemotypes 25 years ago. Actual tests were likely done even beyond that. To assume that there would be zero variance since then is ridiculous.
The 11 Year Waka was planted when the island where it was grown was purchased. Records were not kept as to which variety was planted. When the owner decided to start selling it he brought in a botanist to oversee it. The botanist reviewed any information he could and came to the conclusion that he thought it was Loa Kasa Balavu. It is speculation, but it's possible that the kava in question is not actually Loa Kasa Balavu, but is a closely related noble cultivar. Because many kava plants look almost identical, this theory is not far fetched. There is a plant from the same region known as Vula Kasa Balavu that looks almost identical, from what I gather. It had, when tested in 1989, a kavalactone content of 462315, very close to current results. Again, the idea that the 11 Year Waka could actually be that cultivar is speculation but is nonetheless quite possible.
I'm not so concerned with names of Fijian kava at this point.
The tests show noble and that's the most important thing to me and the vast majority of my customers.
