It's easy to think of studies that don't involve humans so that statement is just wilful obfuscation. Physics, chemistry, heck lots of biology, and of course computer science are primarily made of studies on objects rather than people. Of those that are done on people they are almost always done on people who know they are the subject of an experiment. Very few studies are like this one.
Studies of airport security are done all the time, thats how we know its terribly ineffective. The staff of the airport are not told about them, they are not human experiments.
The experiments on people have a spesific definition that goes beyond "a human is present"
Perhaps a similar approach that allows randomness with some sort of agreement with the maintainers could have prevented this issue while preserving the integrity of the study.
Thats not the correct or relevant criteria. If you were correct, testing airport security and testing AntiMoney Laundering checks at a bank would amount to human experiments. In fact its hard to think of any study of the real world that would not become a "human experiment".
"When you claim that this study was about a process, you're literally taking the researchers side."
Thats some seriously screwed up logic right here.
"Weinstein was a Nazi and a serial killer, if you disagree with me you are taking his side"