Obviously Microsoft only presented tests that they have passed and at least one other major browser has failed. Still this is free QA for the other browsers so there is not much room to complain.
They just submitted tests for the features they were working on. Some of which, happen to work on all other browsers as well.
Of course after they published these results it was pointed out that a) the test were wrong and so other browsers were marked as failing, even when they actually passed, and b) IE was getting things wrong but getting marked correct because the tests were wrong. (That's not even touching the fact that they don't even indicate that Firefox and Webkit would pass a whole heap of the tests just by changing a single string in their code to check a different prefix)
They've since scrambled to get their column back up to 100% pass rate and that's why they've updated this page with their new version. Pretty weak all round.
http://sputnik.googlelabs.com/compare
Guess which browser is the outlier in both dimensions?
What's the point in creating new test to cover things that existing tests already cover?
Why have a row in the table that says SVG IE 100% when the truth is very different:
http://www.codedread.com/svg-support.php
The Google plugin that transforms SVG to Flash passes twice as many tests as the IE9 preview. Opera passes 3 (nearly 4) times as many, yet Microsoft felt it was useful to list a random subset of tests that show them doing well.