But Mark, you have already indicated in other threads you're not overly concerned about how much shadow detail you have. That is an important point.
While I'd agree (as would anyone, presumably) spending all your time and money on testing is useless, a relatively simple personal speed/development test is no big deal to do, and can be very useful. It depends on what kinds of subject matter one plans on shooting as well as what kind of print tonality one aspires to. There are no rules, of course. Just preferences. For example, what if someone prefers giving softer development than ISO standard? With straight line films you lose film speed pretty fast.
I prefer giving more exposure so that everything important has full separations. That's what I want, and it helps me get the print. For others, box speed, or even higher than box speed works fine.
What I would say to OP though, is don't spend too much time initially testing and re-testing and trying to dial everything in to the nearest density unit. Do a few tests and then make pictures and print. You can then fine tune things based on whether you're getting negatives that allow you to make good prints or not. This comes only with some experience. I think that's where many people go wrong. They might read whatever book they've chosen and spend a lot of time getting their test negatives to match the recommended density ranges etc only to find out when they finally start printing pictures, that they're not getting what they thought they were getting. I'm stealing some wording there from Stephen Benskin.
As long as you don't go off the rails, some good initial testing never hurts. You can also learn a lot. But yes, 72 exposures to find some kind of constant EI for IR film - probably not the best use of time.