The test results are not properly interpreted.
The NOACK test was to **** out conventional mineral oils from being used in 5W-30 and lighter viscosity grades. The mineral base oils first used were so volatile that some engines would "boil" off a significant part of the oil charge and the customer would believe there was an oil leak. Or worse, with no spot on the ground, they would never check the oil, even though it could literally be quarts low due to volatility. The early oils would fail with results of 30% or more. The difference between two passing results is immaterial to the consumer.
The four ball wear test is used for grease evaluation and certain additive chemistries. To use it to compare engine oils, where most of the performance is hydrodynamic, different metallurgy, or different surface speeds is misleading.
The flash point is a DOT limit for transport regulations. To compare oils based on flash point and subsequently state it has beneficial volatility (and engine oil performance) characteristics is technically unjustified.
The pour point has been proven by technical societies and the automotive industry not to be an engine oil characteristic that determines proper low temperature performance. The two tests that matter are the Cold Cranking Simulator and Mini Rotary Viscometer. The results of these two tests determine the "W" number of an oil. The pour point does not. Also, the repeatibility of the test is such that 3 degrees doesn't matter.
The TBN indicates the level of one type of additive in the formulation; detergents. Detergents keep high temperature areas of an engine, like piston skirts and ring lands, clean. Diesel engines use more than passenger car oils because they run hotter ring land areas (because in the US, diesels means trucks means turbocharged) and they run up to 80,000 mile drain intervals (so you want lots of this type of additive. Yes, it's a good thing, but if the oil has more of this additive, there should be more other stuff, too. Therefore I have always suggested diesel oils, which has more of everything.
Amsoil has also used near-copies of the ILSAC starburst symbol on the front of many of their products. This symbol is licensed and indicates the oil has passed engine tests, bench tests, and quality tests. To put a copy-cat version on their oil is highly misleading to the public, misrepresents the oil's performance, and because it's on several viscosity grades that aren't even eligible for the symbol (due to fuel economy requirements) it's an obvious, unhealthy, and unfair "F-U" to lubricants industry in the US.
My $0.02