The data you present will always appeal to only a very small audience in the form in which you present it.
Like it or not, most photographers are not technically inclined and are not going to go to the trouble required.
They want a simple A,B,C,D,E rating system and don't want to take the time to understand the technology required to delve further.
You know this kind of rating is meaningless, and I know it is meaningless, but think Consumer Reports! At the very least, you need to draw people in. The oversimplified rating approach will do that. Then follow the simple rating with a more detailed description that gets closer to the truth; not facts and charts but an actual description... "This paper/ink combination will do well under X lighting circumstances, lasting YYY to ZZZ years, but will crumble and blow away in two weeks if exposed to W for even a few minutes." Then, finally, offer the data you already offer.
Also, you need to think of what you are doing, as selling a product. It must be marketed. People must be "sold" on using your 'product'.
If they don't know they need something, they won't take an interest. And when they do take an interest, they don't want to be bored, overwhelmed or embarrassed. This brings us right back to A,B,C,D,E.
Also consider that you are in "competition" with Wilhelm. He provides a simplified rating of sorts, though a more disjointed web page I have never seen (sorry Henry). He is also widely respected. After all, he brought down the big yellow box Goliath, a tough act to follow. You cannot gain any ground by pointing out the defects in his method and touting your own because of his reputation. Therefore you have to present a plausible case why your simplified rating is more informative than his, and more readily digested. (This is where the written description mentioned above comes in.) Only then can you point out that you also offer more in-depth information. In short, creating an appealing and entertaining read.
But there is a bigger aspect I don't believe anyone has yet touched on.
The photography world has changed drastically since the advent of digital photography. It is as if everything learned and taught for 150+ years was simply discarded or lost. There was once a tradition that could almost be described as apprenticeship. New photographers learned from older photographers, studied the history of photography and did not make the same mistakes over and over again. Now it is as if new photographers intentionally refuse to learn anything from the past, rushing ahead in total ignorance. They are trying to make their photographs look like paintings (Stieglitz is rolling over in his grave), printing on canvas, dry mounting again, hell, they're even mounting photographs on planks of wood(!), they are printing so-called fine art on RC paper, ignoring image quality, using their phones for capture, and more to the point, acting as though they never even heard the word "archival". They are completely ignorant of the history and traditions of photography and even proud of it, so not only is your data impenetrable to them, it is UNDESIRABLE!
To put it simply, you are up against a massive wall of willful ignorance.
Add to this the fact that the big longevity problem of the past was always color, not B&W. Now, for the color photographer, inkjet prints have dramatically improved print longevity over silver-based color papers, and therefore photographers tend to ask the question "what problem?" (The voices of those of us who work in B&W have been drowned out by the cheers over color.)
To the current generation of photographers, photography never existed before them. There is no wisdom to be gained and no tradition to follow.
So the problem is first, causing them to feel they lack something, and then making them desire it. And now, we're right back to marketing!