Suggestions:
MF tends to be handled by dedicated photographers, 1.6x crop less so. That affects image quality perhaps more than the equipment used.
Large sensors tend to have more pixels than small ones. Unless you are diffraction-limited, I believe that may be an advantage for the larger camera.
MF may offer movements, smaller formats generally are used without.
You seem to base your questions on idealized physics. Idealized physics are a great tool to understand the world around us, but they don't capture everything. 35mm f/1.0 lenses are not easily available for my 1.6x crop camera. Those lenses that are available may not be a perfect scaled-down analog of some MF lense, tolerance and all.*)
I am a big fan of great end-results no matter how they are obtained. But I am a sceptic about supposed benefits of a given piece of gear if they cannot be summarized in a compact explanation that I can comprehend, or a fair side-by-side that I can accept.
-h
*)If a lense designer were given the following task: resolve as many line-pairs as possible on a square area of any size, what dimensions, materials and construction principles would be most sensible?