You are right. It is a matter of interpretation. You see it one way, other people another.
Now if the expert had said "AN EXACT MATCH" there would be no squabble.
Do you know why she didn't? Because she can't. The reasons for this have been gone over and over too.
SO, the TESTIMONY says SIMILAR, right? And that is as close as they can LEGALLY SAY.
But the prosecution did in opening statement. He knew what the fiber witnesses would say ahead of time. We, the people and the jury need to know the reason for the difference in language. I would highly recommend someone involved in the case to explain..whether it be the judge, feldie or dusek.