Similarly, to make any real judgements about belt life, one would need to have two decks with the same parts installed. One deck would need to be used and the other not. A meaningful conclusion could be made if the belts on one of the decks held up better than the ones on the other. Otherwise, I don't see how any definitive statements can be made.
The closest I can come to a meaningful experiment is with the rubberized coating on a computer mouse. Many years ago, I set up two office workstations, one for me and another for my wife. They both had the same keyboard, mouse and monitor (all purchased at the same time). I use my workstation daily, my wife uses hers very occasionally. The rubber coating on my mouse turned into a sticky mess, the coating on my wife's mouse turned into a hard substance. Neither is anything like when they were new. I think I can make a meaningful statement about the coating on this particular model of mouse. I don't think extrapolating this experience to anything else is necessarily meaningful.
One commonly believed theory (backed by science) is that every rubber part degrades somehow. The degradation clock starts when it is removed from the mold. The nominal speed of degradation is based on the composition and process used to manufacture the part. One can speed up or slow down the clock based on the environment or usage, but the degradation is inevitable.
The more I think about this the more questions that I have... For example, how important is it to buy a freshly manufactured belt? Buying from old stock would be problematic if the belts degrade mostly from not being used. Conversely, it wouldn't be so much of a problem if the belts degrade mostly from usage.
Glitch