I don't understand a lot of these "tests" that knives are subjected to. A knife is made to cut. Some knives will chop, or can be thrown, or other things, but in general, especially folders like these being discussed, are designed to cut, and that's generally about it. Obviously, there are special purpose knives, as well. I won't say that there is necessarily nothing to be learned by "spine whacking" and other tests, but usually it's not much. As far as more expensive knives not far exceeding cheaper knives' performances in some of these tests, that doesn't necessarily mean much, either.
It reminds me of when that hockey mask guy was batonning a Chris Reeve Project knife with a small sledge, and the blade snapped. People were quick to point out that the $10 Sportsman's Guide knife took much more abuse. Does that make it a better knife? Not in my opinion. It tells me that it can probably take more hits to the spine with a sledge hammer than a Project I, but I believe that Mr. Reeve didn't design his knife to absorb sledge hits. I believe that he designed them to cut well, hold an edge, provide a satisfying experience, have very long-lasting quality, etc.
I believe that locks were added to many of these knives to provide a safer experience, not make them unfoldable. Of course the blade shouldn't fold on you when the lock is engaged, but keep in mind the materials, design, and tolerances of the tool you're using, also. For some reason, there's a craze of people wanting knives, especially lower to mid quality folders, to be able to do any task set before them, without ever folding, failing, getting dull, chipping, rolling, the coating getting scratched, blade play developing, etc. Use a knife, especially a folder, knowing that it has limitations. If you use a tool, any tool, outside of its' design parameters, you should expect failure. You may or may not get failure, depending on a variety of factors, chance being one of them. But you should expect it.