Here are 2 interesting examples.
Example 1 compares:
1. RAW data samples in perceptual grayscale as provided by file
2. Nearest Neighbor duplication of the samples in color
Example 2 compares:
2. Nearest Neighbor duplication of the samples in color
3. Demosaic samples without any filtering
All files are processed using the same tone response which has auto-adjusted the source samples for exposure and brightness, that is: samples are distributed over the entire scale and the average perceptual brightness is at 50%. This may brighten the darktones more than you are used to seeing in your other RAW converters, which then makes colornoise more visible than what you are used to. Either way, the samples are what they are, if you look closely at the RT samples you posted, they also show the exact same colornoise, just buried in darkness, but it is there.
RAW data was read from file using DCRaw. The engines used to do conversion are proprietary, they do not use DCRaw. Since DCRaw is one of the most dense and most badly written code ever, in the entire history of software, I will not vouch for its accuracy, but since most of the academic world and scientific programs out there use it to read RAW files, I do not believe the data would be much different from those software options. (Note that I highly regard Dave's initiative as a monumental achievement for all kinds of reasons, but the coding style is simply not one of those reasons.)
Make of it what you will. If you're happy with your own way of processing, by all means use it. Other people use other methods, and use other RAW converters, not only for the processing, but for the entire production chain those converters may offer.