OK, I can't resist -- I'm going to stick my kneck out (I'm new at this, so please use a sharp, relatively painless ax

)
Years of experience and great training (that I don't have, I readily acknowledge) can lead one to the ability to torch and/or forge heat treat a blade and get what has become known as a "high performance" knife. This is obvious by the testing of blades that has been done time and again.
But...
Let's say, hypothetically, we have a steel that rigorous scientific, laboratory analysis and testing (the kind of testing that is WAY beyond the ability of a smith to do) shows will achieve optimal strength/cutting ability etc. for blade purpose X when heated to exactly 1475 degrees at no faster than 100 degrees per hour, soaked (for 1/4" steel) for 8 minutes, then quenched to drop below 450 within 1.5 seconds, then held at 425 for 15 minutes, then cooled to 120, then tempered at 425 twice (this is hypothetical, so don't get the axe out yet

)
Using this steel, we have bladesmith A use high-tech lab equipment to heat treat using the exact parameters the scientific experiments showed would create the optimal blade for use X. We have bladesmith B, who has extensive experience heat treating with forge and/or torch, and who's blades are renowned for their superior performance in use X, heat treat with their usual forge/torch methods.
The odds of bladesmith B hitting the scientifically proven "best" heat treatment are virtually impossible. Even A will have a tough time being exact, unless he has some great equipment.
All other things being equal (and I mean ALL OTHER THINGS), when both A's and B's blades are tested, and judged against performance criteria applicable to use X, I can only see 3 possible outcomes:
Outcome 1: A's "controlled heat treat" blade will outperform B's "skilled artisan heat treat" blade, because A's methods more accurately matched the "ideal" for the steel and purpose.
Outcome 2: No discernable difference will be found in testing, because the difference between B's method, and A's was not measurable in real-world blade use.
Outcome 3: B's blade will outperform A's blade, because the scientists are out to lunch.
I find it hard to believe that outcome 3 could occur. That leaves 1 or 2.
OK, you can get your axes out now...my kneck is on the block...what am I missing here? Is my logic flawed? Please be gentle...