The attacks on the test conditions are silly -- there are no perfect tests, but that doesn't mean you can't reach a few conclusions. One conclusion I've reached is that none of the 35s, because of the trade offs between pixel count/pixel size/resolution/DR on one hand, and noise on the other, will ever be as absolutely good as the top MF backs with good lenses.
But so what? That's meaningless except for the tiny fraction of people who BOTH afford MF backs AND make their living from fine art prints. The evidence seems to be piling up that the end product for *most* commercial photography -- small- to medium-sized prints, magazine shots or web photos -- there is no discernible difference in the final product between shots with a camera like a 1DsIII and a P45.
There will, of course, be a visible difference in large, one-off, digital prints. But I would suggest that even that difference won't be particularly visible if you're doing photos for a store promotion (like Victoria's Secret, which uses poster-sized model shots in the windows) and the posters are printed on commercial printing presses of less than the highest fidelity.
There is, in fact, a practical aspect to all of this, and for those practical purposes, MF may have more and more difficulty proving that it is a desirable option vis-a-vis 35.
Of course, there are other aspects, like art directors who demand that the shots be done on MF, because they believe that they need the highest possible quality, even when the final product will be printed on toilet paper...