When someone first provides a product that tests to have light fastness at 1000+ years via your testing, should the market eschew all other products because they are not in the same order of magnitude? I'm sure you would say no. That's the point. Not everyone understands more than the headline number and that's what we need to fix. Not just for the professionals and the enthusiasts, but for the majority. First step, for sure - I totally agree - but we need to keep marching and sometimes arguments and discussions in a place like this get so bogged down over a tiny numerical variation that progress seems unlikely.
Precisely why Aardenburg light fastness test results are expressed as megalux hours of exposure and not "years of life". Choose a low enough real world light level and numerous traditional and modern photographic prints won't fade due to light in 1000+ years. They may fade for other reasons, but not light exposure. Thus, your suggested goal has already been met!
"Years of life" is a good example of the kind of soundbite you seem to suggest that the "layman" requires. The industry has certainly obliged. But to express any light fade rates in terms of "Years on display" requires a critical assumption about average daily light levels in the display environment. That's a fool's game because the uninformed public takes these "light standardized" ratings as gospel for how the prints will age in many different environments and without bothering to ask what the prints will actually look like when they reach the quoted age number (e.g., some fade, lots of fade, or totally unrecoverable image). Real world light levels of prints on display, even in just one individual's home, typically vary by two sometimes three orders of magnitude. So, go ahead and make three prints using the same materials and process. Place them in three different locations in your home where you might like to have them on display. One may fade noticeably in 2 years, another in 20, and another in 200. How would you rate the product in terms of display life? I choose not to convolute the real world light levels into the rating, so I stick with megalux hours. Then anyone (with a wee bit of knowledge) can use a simple table (and a light meter for more accuracy if they wish) to figure out that the brightest location described above will fade the print 100 times faster than the safest location, and they can complete their own "display life" prediction based on a rational knowledge of their chosen display environment. The formula is 6th grade math, maybe not even.
As far as getting too bogged down in a discussion "in a place like this", you may be right. But I think many LL readers are interested and would rather hold these discussions here than not hold them at all. What's the alternative? Quit discussing print permanence in this forum because some people think the subject matter is too difficult or too corrupted with false claims and faulty research?
With respect to EEF which is after all what got this thread started, a balanced perspective on the pros and cons of EEF means the OBA burnout issue needs to be understood, but obviously that's just one of many factors that buyers will want to consider. I believe people should not feel any buyer's remorse if they really like the look and feel of EEF (and apparently many photographers do). However, printmakers may want to think twice about labeling prints with high OBAs an "archival pigment print" since OBAs are fugitive dyes. With Epson OEM K3, K3VM and HDR inks EEF exhibits moderate lightfastness but not as robust as other papers in this "traditional Fiber" class of inkjet papers. I doubt there are logical alternatives which improve on the lightfastness properties unless the OP is willing to try a somewhat less "cool white" paper, (e.g., IGFS. Canson infinity Baryta, etc). Those papers have some OBAs as well but the amounts, locations, and chemistry within the various layers help those products to perform significantly better in Aai&A light fade testing.
I certainly don't believe we are morally obligated to always choose the most stable process, but I do think it's better to be informed rather than ignore the print permanence issues because the subject matter can't be easily reduced to a simple soundbite. But if you insist, ponder this relatively simple and entirely truthful statement:Framed under glass and using reasonable conditions for humidity, temperature, and light levels, plus allowing for some discoloration and embrittlement that won't destroy the functional or aesthetic value of the object, even an image printed with ordinary dyes on the most acid-choked, lignin-filled news paper pulp can easily last over a century on display!
So, if a century of "display life" meets your personal standards without getting bogged down in those pesky details, then you no longer need to be concerned about print permanence issues.