@Devin's answer is very valuable be sure to understand his point about the difference between methods and methodology, i would like to add :
Just to put this one away first
While it would have solved the riddle faster, i would prefer to avoid falling to my fast thinking heuristic that says **the typical boss that knows nothing and decides on everything ** so i would like to start this off by saying i am assuming here that your boss is qualified to perform and moderate test, if this does not apply i would definitely rely more on the non-moderated version, or in a statistical language if you prefer i would rely much more on a random uncontrolled sample over having a biased stratified sample, now the answer:
You might want to consider merging the findings
User tests produce different findings, while initially the main purpose is to assess the usability of our products they often bring different insights to the table varying from users needs insights, market insights and sometimes even how the value proposition is perceived on its own, it is very important to be able to distinguish between usability findings and other findings.
The issue with wide target groups is inconsistency in findings, so the difference between results could be due to either actually having different users or it could be due to the different environment of the test.
In Nielsen Norman Group's article https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-many-test-users/
How Many Test Users in a Usability Study?
The answer is 5, except when it's not. Most arguments for using more test participants are wrong, but some tests should be bigger and some smaller.
To my understanding the answer above is more relevant to the usability aspect of the study, meaning from usability perspective the findings are representative using 5 users, but it does not mean the the other insights must representative as well, as an example if a user says "i wouldn't buy this product for this amount" does not necessarily mean the market will not buy it, although it might hint that the value proposition needs better verification.
So if we agree we have to differentiate between the types of conflicting findings you have arrived, and we are talking about findings that reflect specifically usability issues then it should be safe to merge them and treat the entire superset of findings rather than having to choose between Test A or Test B.
Usability issue 1 Usability issue 2 Usability issue 3
Test A: Exists Does not Exist Exists
Test B: Does not exist Exists Exists
This way you can argue that your solution is more comprehensive.
One last comment this is a managerial way of handling things, some might disagree with the approach, yet it's up to you how to decide on it. I needed to bring spotlights at the different types of findings into your consideration while making your next move, best of luck.