You're very nearly right but using the words in the wrong way.
As has been pointed out lots of times, homebrewers are prone to bias. Huge amounts of it.
Something has been bothering me about this thread and the "objective" and "subjective" discussion, but the words escaped me until your post.
Denny's tests aren't an attempt at making an objective analysis of beer or process. They're an attempt at making an unbiased analysis.
Beer, as Jim has pointed out, is inherently subjective since we all taste and experience it differently. If you wanted an objective analysis, you'd need to have a lab analysis and the usefulness of that is debatable. Paraphrasing Denny, we drink the beer not the numbers.
I think that testing processes is great, and all you guys who do it and record it are helping all of us (or most of us). But I also believe that Brewday is correct that there are certain improvements you can make to your process or brewing that have a clear and indisputable benefit. That benefit may not be broadly applicable to other systems, but when you've improved your beer you generally know it.
Take the shaken, not stirred, starter approach. Denny recorded his first experience using it and said that it he thought it produced a better Noti Brown (did I get that right? Maybe it was a different beer) than he had made previously in many many batches. I think that right there tells you that even though we're all biased, clear improvements are obvious. But maybe I'm reading too much into or misremembering that experiment.