Sorry that I didn't clear that up: my intention was to include TM with the screen heritage armor. Paul went to great lengths to be as geometrically close to the original armor as one can posibly be from reference material and without recasting. His efforts must be recognized, and though not a cast from an original source, to all effects it should be considered "screen heritage" armor, as a TM is practically indistinguishable from what you see on screen.
There are certain treats of an armor geometry that makes it look like a stormtrooper. If an armor comes close to this geometry to a point where you can't distinguish it from an original, I consider it as good as an original.
But if you geometry is all wrong (angles are wrong, shapes are not the same, features are displaces by more than just a few millimeters or things are simply missing) then my personal opinion is that it can't be considered a good enough replica to be ranked among the higest level you can achieve in this hobby today.
Edit: One more thing. At least for me, Centurion is the ultimate goal. Is the "the only way to have something closer to a screen Stormtrooper is having an original armor". Is the "If you can't get an original, the closer is this, and you do it this way". A lot of people investigated, documented and worked hard to fulfill our childhood dream. Centurion should be the recognition to that effort, not just one more step to improve the standard. That could be achieved refining EIB requirements.