, I did dig into this as well, as I was, and still am, plagued with an obsession for originality. The W&N rear floor plans are much better compared to the front one. I have noticed the following for the rears: - rear floor pans have the larger rectanular depression, it is about 10 mm to short front to back. - rear floor pans have the 3 beads running front to back, their distance to each other is 1 ~ 2 mm's off compared to the E9 floor to which it has to line up with. - and ofcourse the twist lock cap is integrated and not a seperate part anymore, (but i don't mind, as i consider this an improvement. ) Regarding the Front floor from W&N, it is missing (see attached picture where it shows the W&N panel with modifications) : - the 90 degree fold, where it connects to the inner sill - the 5 depressions running front to back - the curve at the front of the footwell, where it meets the firewall - an 8-10 cm long bead, in the above curve, in the right front corner of the passenger footwell; - the rectangular depression & opening above the frame rails - the circular depression & opening above the frame rails - and the -as per Original topic- circular feature that is above identified as allegedly a ground plate for an antenna to detect loads of BS.... The polish examples, , look better in replicating these details. I cannot comment on their exactness as i haven't seen nor measured them. On one point they are also missing some details, and that is that at the rear floor, the beads dont run into the large depression. they stop just before the edge, and start again in the 10 mm lower plane. they should run continuesly. (see picture with the blue Pelny panel) Big advantage is that with the Pelny panels, there is one less long weld to make and dress compared to the W&N panels where 2 have to be joined. For a body shop that is almost cost neutral. Hope this is helpful, Erik.