In answer to your more editorial questions, I would go to the Editors Round table with those. The style guide changes frequently and is available for anyone to see.  https://backpackinglight.com/write-backpackinglight-com-gear-review/

My personal thoughts are this:

Every article requires authors to rely on their personal experience analysis and perception. Sections will have my personal opinion and sections will have information only.

As far as ‘in actual practice,’ how far down a rabbit hole do we go and to what end?

I could go and solicit every company making mid-grade crampons and request break and load strength tests on their materials. I’ll be waiting for the information for weeks or months (if I get it at all.) Not conducive for publishing a reasonably quality article in an appropriate time frame.

I could also do load/break tests on all the products on the market and report back. However, who is buying me a bunch of crampons to destroy? Who is paying for my time to do it? Don’t get me wrong, I like wrecking stuff, especially if it’s because I wore it out.  However, it’s not fiscally feasible (or responsible) to destroy a bunch of products to go beyond perceived longevity. Some things are obvious without getting too in depth. Also, I believe this falls more into the MYOG information. If I was building crampons it would have more intrinsic value.

Thicker chains are going to have less pressure per square inch on the elastomer binding and therefore will be less subject to binding failure but add weight. Double welded chains will have higher break/load strength. Bigger teeth will have more traction but add weight. More teeth will have more traction and add weight. Seems relatively obvious without me intentionally destroying gear or spending months of research for curiosity sake

The bonus of being able to engage with authors, is you can ask more questions. Even a decade or more later you can find out updated information about a product. If you look back in 2005 there is a review on MSR Lightning Ascent Snowshoes. In 2019, I can provide an updated look at the product and provide information on their female specific Lightning Ascent. No one has asked, but it could be done.

When or if these crampons fail, I will post an update. Eight months of heavy use in and I probably have an even higher opinion of them than the week snapshot of their use. No significant wear, no failures. I don’t stop using a product I highly recommend when the review is over. They stay in my inventory for years. The only time I highly recommend a product is when I have decided to keep it for an extended period of time.

The beauty of a reader/author forum is If you already have a pair of similar crampons you can add your personal experience with those specific crampons and your individual use. If you have this exact pair of crampons you can add your experience with them based on your individual use. Having a different experience doesn’t make my experiences invalid. Preference, conditions, experience, and individuality in using gear all play a role in gear selection. The reviews are very transparent, I have to articulate my experience and my rational for the gear I pick. I don’t have to do that for anyone else. Different purpose and terrain will always lead to a different item selection. I can tell you right now, someone will have a use for each of the products compared. The compared products didn’t jive with my uses and terrain.

I have many years in Ultralight backpacking in and I do not always put the highest value on the lightest option for the simple reason is it is not the most appropriate option when I factor in everything else. I don’t know any long term ultralighter who does blind ounce racing for long. The ounce race is fun for a while, but it wears off. At some point dollar value, product quality and longevity, health and safety considerations, comfort factors, weight and individual preference comes back to a more balanced and wholistic approach.

For instance, I used to use plastic sporks. They are the lightest  and cheapest available options but they also break at inconvenient times a few times a season. Now I have a titanium long handled Snowpeak spork. It’s heavier, and more expensive on first blush. It’s cheaper when I factor in a) how much waste breaking plastic items creates b) how often I was replacing my plastic spork c) extra repair materials I carry because the lightest, cheapest option could be counted on to fail at any time. My Snowpeak was also lighter when compared with the chunk of duct tape and stick I carried after I would patch my plastic spork when it failed. Still a nice light option? Yup. Better quality item? Yup. Worth the weight and money? Likely, I haven’t replaced a spork in 5 years. I was buying about 1 plastic spork a month or two. Same thing with every other piece of gear, factor the weight but always take your brain with you.

In this case, the dollar value of the product with the product quality were more important than the weight. A couple of oz’s either way are not going to off set the positive features of the product. I can wear lighter shoes or lower the weight on some other item if I compulsively need to gram weenie. An integral part of safety on an icy headwall is not where I ever choose to gram weenie. Bigger teeth, more stable bindings, and a lower price point for a couple ounces is acceptable. I would love to see this product in a titanium, would be cool but might not be worth the price point either.