There's a reason why there are guidelines for testing. Why try to reinvent the wheel. You're making assumptions that may or may not be correct. Bad testing can be worse than no testing at all, and other similar cliches. I recently ran across a quote by Phil Davis on in camera testing,
"Traditionalists defend this testing method ó some vehemently ó on the grounds that involving the camera in the test simulates the conditions of practical use and is, therefore, not only convenient but desirable, Similarly, they are apt to argue emphatically that, after all, the purpose of this whole thing is to produce prints, so appraising print values must therefore be the most appropriate way to judge the materialsí performance.
In fact, thatís a technical non sequitur. These traditional testing procedures canít supply material-specific information any more than driving your car around the block can inform you about the comparative quality of your motor oil, You can obviously tell whether the car runs satisfactorily or not, but you canít know for sure what part the oil has played in that performance. There are simply too many unrecognized or uncontrolled variables in the procedure; there is no accurate way to quantify the results of such subjective tests, and you have no logical basis for assuming that the conclusions drawn are valid."