I think no one and definitely not me stated that DSLR files are as good (whatever that means) as MF files, my point is that as a commercial shootier in my field this quality advantage doesn't show.
What shows is that DSLR solutions are easier and quicker to work with, critical focus is easier achieved, compositional fine-tuning is way easier, financial and technical burden is way less and hardly anyone seems to notice the difference.
there is a lot of stuff that really improved my photography in recent years, e.g. using a dedicated 26" screen only for live view, or using those insanly expensive Fisso clamps to prop my subjects or using a second assistant just to keep the clients happy or swallowing part of the studio rental fee, just because both me and my clients are more comfortable and many things more. the tedious workflow of MF certainly work in the other direction.
The argument, that MF files leave more room for manipulation doesn't really count for me. My shooting environment is very controlled, it just can't happen that I blow my highlights or kill the black.
Maybe I should disclose my workflow for these files:
Hasselblad: shot into Phocus, edited there to get the look I liked, exported to 16bit tiff, into lightroom.
Canon: shot into eos capture, edited in lightroom.
then I tweaked the colors to equalise them. I only used global adjustment and very little of that. downsampling and color space conversion by lightroom.
using Hasselblad DNGs in lightroom wasn't successful.