It is shown that spectra measured as part of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Pulsed Sphere (LPS) program offer decisive information to locate formatting or physics issues in nuclear data of key interest for fusion reactor simulations. However, experiments from this measurement series are not benchmarks. For instance, their uncertainties are incomplete. There are also many open questions—e.g., on the setup, the detector response, and whether LPS are accurately modeled—that cannot be answered anymore given the limited documentation and that many of the experimenters are no longer actively working. This limited knowledge has implications when one tries to adjust nuclear data to LPS spectra. Usually, one adjusts to benchmarks representing an application with the hope to get more precise nuclear data for the application of interest where differential data might be scarce and/or to reduce nuclear data uncertainties in the application simulations. However, it is demonstrated that adjustment with LPS spectra without accounting for missing uncertainties and modeling potential biases in the experimental data leads to adjusted data that are highly unphysical. That means adjusted data differ significantly from evaluated data based on information from differential experiments; also, application quantities predicted with the adjusted data deviate distinctly from experimental ones. While we can approximate our limited knowledge on these experiments with Gaussian processes in the adjustment process, this modeling of bias is arbitrary rather than based on a physics explanation, calling into doubt the validity of resulting adjusted data. Thus, we discuss here the need for a new measurement series, learning from the strengths and weaknesses of the LPS program, to yield decisive and well-benchmarked integral experiments to support fusion reactor research.