@TSherbs, that's fair enough, and I'm certainly not going to challenge you or argue with you with regard to in what information content you personally find value.
However, I must disagree with your assertion of "feed is artificially saturated" if the pen has just been filled. Why the hell would I be filling a pen with the ink at a given point in time, if I wasn't expecting to use it shortly afterwards? If I was only planning on using the ink in two days' time, why wouldn't I defer filling the pen for a day or two? Writing immediately after filling a pen, I would argue, is a far more common user scenario than you're prepared to acknowledge; I'd say more than half the users of the ink will experience it. It is at least as good a use case (or attribute of one) to present as any other in a review.
As far as leaving the ink filled in a pen goes, I have maybe 50 or 60 fountain pens here. Some will not start after three days of being unused, regardless of the ink, because the cap sealing mechanism is ineffective. Every of the five Luoshi 3069 pens I have has that problem. My two Parker Sonnets also don't seal too well, so it's not just the cheap Chinese pens. I have numerous Platinum pens that are marketed as not going to dry out even if left filled with ink and unused for a year, but will start writing whenever the user is ready. I have ten or so Pilot Vanishing Point pens here, and some seal better than others. Whether someone is going to get hard starts after leaving his/her pen unused for, say, two days is not a question I can answer, want to answer or will attempt to answer in an ink review; I cannot even say what are the 'typical' circumstances within my own little universe.
Anyway, my view is that an ink review ought to be first and foremost about the characteristics of the ink – not the pen/nib/feed, not the paper, and certainly not the person reading the review imagining what it would be like for him/her to use the ink. Of course we're all limited in how much we can isolate or decouple a review and/or discussion of the ink, as a product in its own right, from the pen/nib/feed/paper that the individual uses, but that is why the reviewer is using his/her choices for the testing, not anyone else's pen/tool/equipment and not anyone else's choices (even if we're prepared to assume that all Platinum #3776 rhodium-plated 14K gold SF nibs, say, are created equal and effectively identical – when of course they aren't, in the real world). As a reviewer, I can only articulate a subset of what I discovered, observed or experienced when I studied the review subject, measured it, experimented with and/or used it.
The imagined or projected user experience of the individual reader of the review is important to that reader – of course – but no-one else, really. OK, maybe the product manufacturer, who has something to gain by better aligning its products with the target customer base.
Even as the reviewer myself, how my writing experience would be if I were to leave the ink in my EF-nibbed pen unused for 103 hours, then taking my pen out from my shirt pocket at a cafe on a fine, sunny day when the ambient temperature is 19 degrees, to make notes in the margins of an article in a "gentlemen's magazine", could not be the subject of the ink review study even if that were a common user scenario for me. (It isn't. I don't carry my fountain pens in shirt pockets.) Yet that seems to effectively be the type of thing some review readers (not you specifically) agitating to know, and want to be catered for before they deign to conclude the reviewer has not wasted their time reading. I find that mentality off-putting.
Even if I was performing reviews or assessments professionally for discussion papers, I would still only be giving hard data such as what someone would find on a spec sheet, maybe cite one or two case studies, and possibly a short list of tests and test results, unless it's a study/report specifically commissioned by a single client with a very clearly defined interest and my job is to guide his/her/its investment decisions. If I was reading reviews and product technical reports for professional reasons, it would be my responsibility to try to close the knowledge gap at my 'expense' of time, effort, due diligence and considered risk-taking, to see how my company's or my client's intended application relates to the data and the case studies that have been published.