Show me the code to retrieve this information from the controller of a standard SATA or SAS drive.
What, you mean like bad144 included as standard on this very (NetBSD) system? Call yourself a data storage expert? It is one of the things in our routine monitoring.
READ THE CERN PAPER AND UNDERSTAND IT, then try to find a solution.
I've read both papers you cite. Neither support you. You can quote the specific sentence or paragraph if you like but I'll tell you now: it isn't there. You made a very specific claim about a head to head comparison between RAID and a single disk. Neither makes such comparisions because that is not the goal of either paper. Both are concerned with the system as a whole rather than the specific characteristics of the array - indeed the CERN paper ackowledges that the errors they recorded where primarily attributable to memory, i.e. before it even got to disk.
It is not enough to show that data corruption exists. It is not enough to show that the most widely used error detection and correction systems are not bulletproof. Rebecca has kept a laser focus on the original claim: each time you have introduced irrelevances and distractions that bring in factors that affect the legitimacy of your claim neither one way or the other. Neither deals with RAID1 at all.
Although neither paper addresses your point the NEC paper supports the argument to the contrary:
"Disk drives commonly experience errors that are recoverable via the ECC..."
"At some point, data becomes unreadable leading to “read failures,”..."
"RAID can also catch and address errors flagged by hard drives..."
The silent corruption case not reported by the drive is restricted a small fraction of cases. It doesn't tackle that head on but does hint at the reduced magnitude of the problem:
"However, there is a set of disk errors not caught by the hard drive..."
Please do comment back, I'm enjoying watching how you can dance on the head of a pin for so long withotu admitting the mistake.