Actual photos hint at flawed theoretical measurements by bclaff Locked

According to the "measurements" and results graphics:

1. a Sony A7R3 should provide the exact same dynamic range at ISO 100 as a K-1 II.
2. there is mentioning of loss of details for the K-1 II but not for the Sony A7R3

But then we are not primarily theoreticians, but photographers, so the proof lies in the image:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=pentax_k1ii&attr144_1=sony_a7riii&attr146_0=100_6&attr146_1=100_6&attr177_0=off&attr177_1=off&normalization=compare&widget=608&x=-0.6873051525279211&y=0.11229493274677838

Raising shadows is the main usage for a lot of sensor dynamic range.

Maybe I am blind, but the actual photo directly contradicts the bclaff's theory curves:

1. the Sony A7R3 shows substantial (!) extra noise compared to a Pentax K-1II, so there is no way it has even a comparable dynamic range.
2. the Sony A7R3 has massive loss of detail when using the dynamic range to a large extent, much more than a Pentax K-1II, but somehow I only read the narrative of how the Pentax has some detail rendering issues.

The D850 also is much worse than the K-1 II in both dynamic range at ISO 64 (versus ISO 100 of the K-1 II) and detail retention.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=pentax_k1ii&attr144_1=nikon_d850&attr146_0=100_6&attr146_1=64_7&attr177_0=off&attr177_1=off&normalization=compare&widget=608&x=-0.6281060958585387&y=0.3381461752929009

That does not exactly leave a very good impression on methodology used and relevancy of these home generated charts.

But I am open for robust explanations for the following questions:

1. How is a chart of "photographic dynamic range" not badly misleading and irrelevant if a camera, which is reported as having equal or better dynamic range produces vastly worse / more noisy images when in practice using that dynamic range as exposure latitude to lift shadows in post (e.g. D850 and A7R3)?
2. How is explicit and repeated highlighting of tiny "loss of details" in higher ISO shots as a negative item explained, when other models such as a D850 and A7R3 show significantly worse loss of details than a K-1 II on pushed low ISO shots and there is only a silence on this instead of a chapter of text?
   How is that not quite biased reporting?

It just don't get it.