In what way would this be significantly different from Murphy's sending all their documents to Gauci? Why should we assume that Murphy's would "do the right thing" any more than we should assume that Gauci would? A couple of the few things that we do know for sure are that Gauci was actively marketing this effect for six months before Murphy's offering appeared, and that Murphy's knew about the Gauci effect. We know essentially nothing about the origins of Murphy's version, which could well be of their own manufacture (or not; we have no evidence either way).... wouldn't it been better if Gauci would have sent all the documents to Murphy...
If Gauci sends all of his documentation to Murphy's (in the absence of a disinterested party), there is every opportunity for the latter to use this information in the construction of an alternate version of events.
Frankly, I don't understand the need to suggest an alternate solution (especially one that presupposes ethical behavior on the part of one of the two parties in dispute). Is there any reason why an independent party should not be permitted to adjudicate? Gauci has already offered to send his information to such. Why has Murphy's not agreed to do the same? Why has Mr. Murphy not even offered a public comment on the question?
There may well be logical answers to these questions, but we have yet to hear them. Even Mr. Trono is being uncharacteristically silent on the proposal.