This is one of those topics that would require volumes to be written to provide a complete answer, but I don't mind throwing in my .02 regarding the specific issues you raise.
I think an analysis of a knife's fit, finish and feel are absolutely critical elements of any good review. These areas speak directly to both the quality control and attention to detail of the maker/manufacturer, as well as the overall ergonomics and useability of the knife. I think people often overlook the fact that for any working knife, ergonomics are every bit as important as what steel is being used, and are a factor that must be addressed in any serious discussion of a knife's performance. Notice that I did say "working knife". In the case of the true wall hanger, I guess you could say that ergonomics and performance are moot points, so why test them. For any other type of knife, yes, of course, performance must necessarily be evaluated.
I think it's pretty much common sense that exactly how tough a performance test should be is largely a factor of the intended purpose of the knife being tested. I'll cut right to the chase on this one. Much has been made lately of the "destructive" testing regimens which have been reported on here, but, like it or not, a majority of these tests have been performed on survival type knives which are often accompanied by the tremendous claims of their makers regarding the level of performance that can be expected from these beasts of burden. I, for one, appreciate the efforts of individuals such as Cliff Stamp, Mike Turber and others, who are willing to invest the time and money necessary to challenge the claims of these makers, and in the process, give us an idea of exactly where the performance envelopes of these knives currently stand. Is this level of testing required for a damascus folder? Not in my opinion. Is it appropriate for a Busse or Strider? Absolutely. "Survival" means lots of things to lots of people depending upon who they are and the environment in which they live. These destructive tests are better able to put all such knives on a more level playing field and give us the ability to make our own apples to apples comparisons in terms of how a specific knife will be able to meet our individual needs. As long as it's not done to my knife, how can this be a bad thing?
It seems to me that the initial testing should be done with the edge as it comes from the maker/factory. Obviously edge profiles are all about compromises, and therefore one must assume that the maker/manufacturer chose that particular edge profile for a particular reason. Once that testing is accomplished, I say by all means reprofile and see how the performance and durability of the blade are affected. In his head-to-head comparisons of various steel types, Cliff is very good about accounting for the role that edge profile plays in overall cutting efficiency. In some instances he has reprofiled an edge to ensure that one blade not enjoy an inherint advantage over another.
Some other things I like to see in a review:
Unbiased objectivity
The scientific method of testing
Use of real world testing scenarios
Head-to-head comparisons where practicable
------------------
Semper Fi
