Noble I think you are missing a few relevant points.
First and formost is that the choice of a specific film, beyond major differences like color vs B&W and fast vs slow, has a very, very limited effect on the result when compared to say subject matter, lighting, lens selection, or a format change. IMO the only reason film choice is such a hot topic is that it is easy and cheap to switch and they are looked upon like magic bullets.
Second is that film test results are only relevant in context. What I mean by that can be demonstrated several ways. First I use two developers for various reasons, DD-X and WD2D+, in times past I used D76 and Xtol. For me, Delta 100 is a different beast in each. The tests you speak of, if Delta 100 was included, would only be relevant/interesting to me if "my" developers were included. That markedly increases the complexity of the test.
And it is not just the film/developer combo either, my choice of developer for Delta is lens specific and can be aperture specific. When Delta 100 is used with my Nikons or with my "normal" Mamiya lenses or Schnieder lenses I prefer WD2D+, when used with my Petzval or Holga or Mamiya 150SF wide open I prefer DD-X. Close the 150SF down some and I'm back to WD2D+ because the diffusion inherent when wide open disappears gradually until it is gone at f8.
In contrast to Delta 100, FP4 is much more forgiving of lens and developer changes for me. FP4+ is akin to hanging out with a good friend, the conversation is fun and easy and neither of us can do any wrong. Delta, for me, is more like hanging out with my daughter's drama queen buddies, which can be real fun or a lot like hell and I don't always know what I'm gonna get in a specific situation. That difference doesn't show up in anybody's test curves or my final prints but it is a real characteristic of those films for me.