"

It is very suspicious that you claim to be an expert, but you are unable to provide any excerpt or specific citation supporting your claim that Dr. Exner's work calls the interpretations here ""incorrect."" For starters, the Exner system of scoring article cites three works, not one as ""the whole book"" implies.  More importantly, anyone with the first-hand expertise you have should easily be able to provide a specific excerpt for your claim.  But most importantly, it seems extremely unlikely to me that you would be able to find any source from 2002 or earlier which claims that specific interpretations made in the 2007 external link are ""incorrect"" on a projective evaluation, for which several easily googleable, apparently reliable sources say there are no ""wrong"" answers.  Consider, if an answer suggests a personality problem which the examiner is screening for, how can it be ""incorrect,"" as it is furthering the objectives of the test?
To answer your question, I have absolutely no expertise with the Rorschach test. However, I am certain that I can understand the plain language of Wikipedia rules as well as you. They include:
""any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.... Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim [including] surprising ... claims that are not widely known.... The requirement to provide carefully selected qualitative sources for exceptional claims especially applies in the context of scientific or medical topics....""  WP:V (emphasis added)
""conflict of interest edits are strongly discouraged.... Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, ... employer, associates, or his business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest.... If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously.""  WP:COI (emphasis added) 
The fact that you found it necessary to use all caps in an edit summary suggests to me that you are emotionally involved with this subject which clearly represents a large portion of your life's work.  Since you cited the entirety of some undefined book instead of providing a specific page numbers per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it, I can not assume enough good faith to bring myself to believe that you are not be conflicted here.
I must renew my request for the specific excerpt(s) or exact citation(s) supporting your claim that the external link contains ""incorrect"" interpretations, and I will be reverting the edit suggesting that it does, in accordance with the foundational WP:V.  Thank you.   "