OK, there may be a few people confused about my scenario and the experimental 'section' I mentioned.
First, the discrepancy was not in my verbal section, the discrepancy was in the quant section. I was extremely confident that I got the majority of questions correct on both quant and verbal. My verbal score ended up at 38 (87th percentile/top 13% of all test takers). This score is in line with my practice exams. My quantitative score is the one that consisted of a discrepancy. The quant score came in at 27 (19th percentile/bottom 19% of test takers).
My average score on quant between 8 practice tests is 40 (putting me in 63rd percentile or so).
I did better on verbal on actual test than I had on all practice tests. This shows that my confidence was not misplaced and that I was having a great test day (thinking clearly, working quickly but accurately, etc). Based on my confidence level, I believed my score should have shown a performance on the quant section that would indicate a similar achievement... Yet the score was completely the opposite.
Secondly, The experimental section is composed of math (quant) questions. It was a completely new section that was included at the end of the test. It was composed of 15 questions and a 30 minute time limit. This is going on for 1 week while GMAC runs this experiment/research. This is NOT the same as the 'experimental questions' that are ALWAYS included spread out amongst all verbal and quant questions in those respective sections.
Again, I did not put any effort into this experimental 'section'. I put random answers so that I could be done with the test. It was clearly indicated that this section was not suppose to be included in the final score.