All these lab tests really hurt my head.
I'd really encourage you to use more tests like the one you did at the top of the Dynamic Range page. But I'd suggest including Capture One - it's not coincidence that the overwhelming majority of the users on this forum and GetDPI who are asked where to process Phase One files say "Capture One".
And don't be constrained to default settings in the software either. Feel free to tweak noise reduction and sharpening on both images to make each one sing as best as you can for your aesthetic - that's the way you'd use the camera in real life, why do any differently in the tests. There is some ostensible academic value in isolating the variables, but there is little practical value in it.
In particular the color tests you've done don't really correlate to creative image making. Such delta-e color accuracy charting is of great value for art reproduction. But the flash and daylite profiles in Capture One aren't meant for art reproduction. They are meant to balance accuracy and pleasantness of color. If you wanted to minimize delta-e believe me you could hit some insanely tight performance requirements (our Department of Cultural Heritage does it all the time as measured by FADGI and METAMORFOZE compliance
). But this won't necessarily make your pictures prettier (better than even odds in my experience that it won't). The Colorchecker Passport is a nice consumer-grade profiling system but
1) it's usually brought up in conversation when the default LR profile is pretty awful as it is in this case for the P45+
2) it increases accuracy, but with no human touch to the pursuit of making pleasant color (as is the case when the color gurus at Capture One sit down and tweak profiles for dozens of hours per back to really make the color sing in as broad of situations as is possible)
3) it isn't nearly as accurate as a more professional profiling system (more patches, more constraints on production, more fine tuning steps)
I really think you're limiting yourself using LightRoom. The dark frame data isn't used (important for deep shadow recovery and long exposures), the algorithms aren't as deeply catered for this back, and the overall math is, IMO, behind C1 for image quality.
Same thing with Raw Analyzer. It's not going to use the dark frame data to bring as much life/accuracy to the shadows as C1 will. Academically interesting, but not very relevant to how far into the shadows you can get printable/pleasant shadows.
Still always nice to see a digital back based on a sensor from 2005 take on a dSLR from late 2012 and hold it's own even in third party software.
And all that said, thanks for sharing your results. I know how inherently imperfect, frustrating, and criticism all testing is. Thank you very much for doing the enormous work of doing your tests and sharing the results.