As typical you make excellent points.
All I counter with is that while inputs are predictors, results tell the complete story.
My Villager UOAs show ST fluids are well more than capable. The tranny fluid I had checked was rom a few years ago, but after the Dex/Merc licenses had expired. That product may have changed by today's blend. But at the time, the ST ATF was performing admirably. As for the engine lubes, they are API licensed; their performance is outstanding, as my two recent UOAs show.
I'll take UOA data (along with other tools like compression checks, filter disection, visual checks, PCs, etc) to validate a lube capability more than a list of what goes into the bottle. Licenses are an assurance of some minimum standard being met, and that is a great place to start. But items which don't meet that (either cannot or choose to not apply) do not automatically fall into some "worthless" catagory. Amsoil, RL, RP and others are not licsensed to many specs; they are fine products. No license exsits for the former DEX/Merc, but that does not mean products cannot fill that niche.
I echo your fears that there are certainly opportunities for a wide range of offerings where no license exists; the risk is that ever-present cost cutting will generally lower the market response with each itteration. As soon as one company cheapens their product, another will follow suit to keep up with the competition. That is a very real risk.
However, at this point, I've not seen any degradation in performance, even if a cheapened product is present.
A quick and simple solution to this question is to have someone here pay for a VOA for ST Dex/Merc ATF. The, compare and contrast those results with the PQIA data for all the others, and see where they fall. I, for one, would like to see it, but I'm not willing to pay for it, as I already am satisfied with the UOA data I have.