Well, the URCNA FV report is just as bad as the rest of them. Bill DeJong has done the slow and steady work of showing how they purposefully omit the qualifications which FV writers make. You can see the latest here, here, and here. This can only be because they wish to distort the issues in order to make their case.
This is why the whole “NAPARC has spoken” argument is empty. NAPARC has spoken repeatedly, to be sure, but it always does so in an irresponsible and inaccurate way. I don’t take it seriously.
It is only worth speaking to the sane critics of the FV, for many of the critics are simply malicious. But to those sane critics I say, your case is seriously compromised. You cannot criticize the FV for being unclear or careless with language if your own denominations are guilty of the same.