So the person reading the evaluation is not a photographer? What you seem to be saying is that evaluation is an end in itself, quite apart from how the camera will be used.
I'll try to explain it from my applications perspective. I realize that a wildlife photographer would have a different perspective.
I photographed an event in old 14th century castle ruins a few weeks ago. The organizers had had a competition for a light art installation that would be displayed on the castle outer walls and there was various musical performances inside, dancing, costumes, illustration for kids, the opportunity for kids to lay coloured LED lits floating on the water etc. Lots of activity of different kinds and they had a lot of visitors far beyond expectations. The event took place from 7pm to midnight.
All the material I shot would be resized for printing up to A4 size and uploaded for the organizers. I didn't need the extra pixels from a higher resolution camera for this. However, to choose which camera to use for which task does to some extent depend on how the image quality is dependent on ISO and what the requirements for a particular part of the event are. For the light art show I wanted to include the lights in the hands of the visitors as well as the lit castle but there was a dynamic range problem. The light show included elements of the history of the site and the figures were moving and changing quickly so I ended up shooting at f/2.8, ISO 2000, and a shutter speed around half a second if I recall correctly. I was concerned about the story being blurred, which happened to an extent but not too much, but in reality I got a problem because of the large difference in the brightness of the light art show and the visitors. The choice between camera would be best made with knowledge of the dynamic range at the ISO I would be using. In this case the D5 has a bit better PDR than the D810 at ISO 2000 (7.9 vs 7.1) but the PDR of the new D850 and the D5 are equal at ISO 2000. In this case although the D850's pixel level noise at ISO 2000 is no doubt greater than that of the D5, the D850 image resized for the application likely is as good or a bit better than the image from the D5.
Similarly for the indoor part I was using ISOs from 2000 to 102400 and to make the right choice of camera the pixel level quality was not a criteria. There is no way to make details at individual pixel level from D810 images at (say) ISO 25600. I still want to have a camera that excels in low ISO dynamic range as sometimes events occur in bright sunlight and I may want the lower ISO of 64 to be able to shoot at a wide aperture. If there are two performers on an outdoor stage one is in the front the other in the back, there can be a large difference in brightness of the two in the final image. To bring them into the same print I may need to do a local adjustment, and for this a camera like the D810 (or D850) excels.
Personal feelings about image quality can always be reported but they tend to be dependent on the observer and even differ from day to day or image to image. Another person using different software or different subject matter could come to different conclusions. I'm not saying measurements should not be validated with real world experience but in the absence of strongly differing real world evidence from multiple accounts I will trust the numbers derived from the raw data first. This is especially because they eliminate the effect of the algorithm used for raw conversion from the evaluation.
In the end, in actual use I pick the equipment to use based on my own experience. However, prior to actually owning and using the camera there is no possibility to have the benefit of that experience. Camera choice has a lot to do with other parameters than sensor image quality but I try not to be burned too badly by not being aware of what I'm getting also in the sensor characteristics.
