First it's "Trou" not "Thou".
Sorry.
Second the words including "precisely fit" were LaViolette's.
Well I'd rather us discuss this in our own words anyways. I can't stand reading long cut-n-pasted quotes.
I believe what he meant is clear. As I mentioned the convention at the time of his prediction No. 9 (1985) was "that supernovae are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. It is presumed that once the red giant's nuclear reactions subside, the star collapses and subsequently rebounds as a supernova explosion."
Okay. And some are. You know, there's like ten different types of supernovae. There's not just one cause of a supernova.
In prediction No. 9 he does say that; "Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced, not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. LaViolette published this prediction in 1985 (IJGS pp. 342-343).
Okay, so he was right about its progenitor being a blue supergiant. That could have been a lucky guess, no?
Where's the beef in this balogna about genic energy though?
So, as to answering your question, "How so?"- does SN 1987A being found to be blue supergiant Sandulek -69 202 "precisely fit the circumstances that would be expected IF supernovae were powered by genic energy"? I think what he meant was just that; Sandulek-69 202 was NOT a star that FIT the conventional "wisdom" at the time of a star that had exhausted its nuclear fuel supply. If ANYTHING it was the opposite; a highly energetic star FULL of fuel!
Does that answer your question adequately?
Sort of, but not really. If we assume geneic energy means that some supernovae have blue giants as progenitors, then finding just that might seem like a success. But what we're missing is anything about this genic energy, itself.
Too, we still have the other types of supernovae that do stem from more traditional explanations - so those aren't really wrong they're just incomplete.