Nick, is it not true that the only way the 92 got through the certification process regarding the 30 mins dry running was by using a manually activated valve that cuts off oil connections to outside the gearbox (cooler etc). The flight manual requires activation within 5 seconds, which is rushed in a modern multi-crew environment. Thus the oil remaining in the gearbox is hopefully not lost (assuming the leak isn't from the box itself). So the 92 cannot cope with total loss of gearbox lubricant? Is my take on that correct? Some have said that that appears to be a bit of a cheat on the certification requirements.
It does seem a bit hypocritical to crow about the fact that the 92 meets all the requirements of FAR29 (1999 version, wasn't it?) and that the 225 doesn't (which is true for a few small areas of the aircraft that have grandfather rights) when there is this question mark over how you got through certification (touch of patriotism by the FAA perhaps?).
By comparison, the 225, along with the 332 and I seem to remember the 330, have an automatic cut-off of external oil feeds following a leak, and the 225 now has genuine 30 minute + running following complete loss of gearbox oil (using a total-loss spray cooling system)
In my opinion this is not a particularly big deal for the 92, as there hasn't been much of a history of aircraft having to ditch due to loss of all gearbox oil, however your silence on this matter (following several "trigger" posts) makes we wonder what other glitches you might be keeping quiet about. It would be better to front up about this, as once the aircraft enters wide service, everyone will know anyway.