It's good that they appear consistent and of decent quality.
However it's very hard to correlate measurable quality against accuracy in the best (most accurate) Exacts that I've used over the last ~9 years.
The most accurate batch I ever had weighed between 8.2 and 8.8 grains and looked like they had been swept off the floor. My current batch 34s are accurate but are average in terms of appearance and weight variation. However the gun will go hundreds of shots without cleaning with these 34s.
I've just tested batch 22 indoors at 50 yards, these look great and are very good on the scales. Superb for 30-40 shots then the groups exploded, on cleaning the barrel proved to be dirtiest ever. The 22s are accurate but in my gun are only usable if you clean the barrel half way round a course!
The point I'm trying to make is that measurable quality is no promise of accuracy in any particular gun. It's a good place to start but it certainly makes the testing process a far more expensive business. If they are all going to be off one machine and set of dies then there is no variation in these new slugs to allow you to find a batch for your gun - it's going to be pure luck as to whether they go well in your gun or not.
I'd pay 15 quid a tin for those old 2009 pellets which ran from 8.2 to 8.8 on the scales and all went through the same hole at 50 yards.