I fully expect to see more issues along these lines...
RNG's are natorious for getting right and most methods of testing them don't work in the way most people would expect of "testing".
Most people assume that tests are designed to show an item under test is working to specification, which is the general accepted use of tests.
But it has the underlying assumptions of being both testable and subject to being accuratly described. To have a specification by which you can perform "go-nogo" testing you have to have a reliable method of determining "nogo" and that requires you to be able to fully enumerate it's charecteristics, which implies that they are both determanistic and bound.
Nearly all RNG tests are infact witnesses to specific failings not general failings let alone all failings. That is whilst it is relativly easy to show behaviour indicative of one very narrow type of determanistic behaviour or bias, you would need what is in effect (under general understanding) an infinite set of witness tests to show all failings...
As was once observed using a determanistic process to generate supposed non-determanistic sequences is in effect living in a state of sin.
However thats what we try to do with "hardware RNGs" and with just one or two exceptions the argument about their behaviour being "chaotic", "complex" and "unpredictable" are little more than opinions not proven facts.
The history of random sequences shows that "what was unpredictable yesterday" may well be "predictable today or tomorow" simply because of the advancment in theory. The "standards" generaly call for a minimum of meeting the "Diehard tests" but we already know they are far from sufficient as some fully determanistic processes pass them with ease. And thus many hardware designers "cheat" by putting in place a determanistic process following the questionable entropy source which is known to meet the tests even if driven by a counter or similar determanistic process. I've described this as "magic pixie dust" thinking whilst others have had other less polite ways of putting it...
However there is another issue to consider which is what is "True Randomness"? We know that there are currently limits in what we know. For instance we do not know exactly when a particle will be emmitted from a radioactive isotope or in which direction. What we do know is that the overall process is very predictable irrespecive of the quantity of the isotope. Thus the question arises as to why the overall process is so predictable, what fundemental physical law/process defines it such that a statistical model fits so accuratly?
We may never know, then again we might find out tomorow, in which case we may well loose a source of "true randomness" as the process moves from the unknown into the relm of determanistic but effectivly uncalculable along with other complex and chaotic physical processes. We might even find that God does not play dice.