Well, they've laboured mightily and brought forth the expected mouse. For political reasons it wasn't possible for the Committee of European Banking Supervisors to run the only stress-test that counts right now, namely the shock to a bank of an actual sovereign default. So it's all as feeble as anticipated, though some good may come of there being a whole lot more numbers out in the open.
What they did instead was to impose 'haircuts' on the values of banks' bond-holdings. Another criticism that has been leveled at the process is that this only applied to trading accounts, not 'hold-to-maturity' assets. As it happens I don't necessarily agree with this line of attack: but the defence I could offer only serves to point out another weakness.
The reason why shocks should be used in stress-testing, rather than assumptions of (relatively) slow-time degradation of market / economic conditions - which is all a haircut represents - is because if an entity has a reasonable amount of time to defend itself, it (along with every other actor) will re-optimise its position as conditions evolve. It is impossible to model with any certainty what this would mean, but in most cases it will result in a much better outcome than passively taking the hit. That's how individuals, firms, sectors and whole economies adjust to, and mostly survive, tectonic shifts in conditions.
That could be given as a reason for omitting held-to-maturity assets from the haircut procedure.
But it simply highlights the need for proper shocks to be applied ! Amateurs ...