The oil exists to serve the engine, not the other way around. Hence, engine wear is more important than oil status.
If the lubricant was a mix of 50% dog urine and 50% goat milk, and yet you got excellent wear trends for repeated 10k mile OCIs, would it matter what was in the crankcase? Don't focus on the wrong things. UOAs are not perfect, nor do they see all things. But they are an excellent way to track wear trends in both macro and mirco analysis. UOAs are, by far, the least expensive and easiest way to infer engine wear.
The TBN/TAN is only important as a predictor as to what MIGHT happen at some point in the future in extended OCIs, as an indicator to potential shift in wear. If TBN or TAN shifts, and wear trends remain unaffected, then how important is TBN/TAN as a condemnation point? (Hint: It's not ... because without correlation, there can be no causation.) I'm not saying TBN/TAN are unimportant; that's not true. But when OCIs are moderate, and wear trends are fine, then the status of TBN/TAN is moot.
I have around 30k UOAs in my database. In all of them where TBN/TAN are known, there's no statistically significant correlation between those values and wear trends in macro data streams from "normal" OCIs. No correlation whatsoever.
The OP is correct here; his moderate OCI does not call for knowing the TBN/TAN. The wear data is enough.