I get what you are trying to say, but if you are talking simply about the best optical performance, that can mean different things to different people.
Just some thoughts. I would love it if AnotherMike jumps in as I am sure he can explain it way better than I.
Lenses are designed with particular constraints in mind like price, size and weight etc. Always those about constraints when we are judging a lens as it is very important to the discussion. The question about say the 58 f0.95 Noct is, "why so big, heavy and expensive?" Well, the parameters that Nikon set out for this lens was basically "perfection", but even then, size, weight and price were a consideration, they had a limit to these parameters. The lens could have been even better but would have been unusably large. The reason it is MF is simply because to make it AF it would have been even larger due to the fact that the AF elements would have had to be differently placed and thus compromised some of the parameters of the lens. Cost would have even been more.
Test criteria may mean that a Nikon lens doesn't test quite as well as a Sony, Canon or 3rd party, say. You can make a lens test brilliantly but look mediocre as far as actual IQ. So, tests are an objective way to test a lens, but much of what we like is also subjective - think bokeh and those sorts of parameters.
What is the purpose of a particular lens's performance requirement? Do we want a portrait lens to be super sharp wide open and up to say f4 when taking portraits and at portrait distance? We may want them to be slightly less sharp so as to flatter the models face but then sharpen up at f4+ for more general photos like landscapes. Does it need to be sharp across the frame at portrait distance? Can it be designed so as to be sharper at longer distance? Again, all these things have to be compromised to achieve a result that satisfies the market at the price, size and weight level.
A lens like the 24-70 f2.8 may have been designed as best they can within the restraints of price, size and weight to be super sharp at landscape focal lengths say 24-50mm, and then not need to be at portrait focal lengths like 70mm wide open, thus a very versatile lens whilst giving excellent bokeh.
Lets look at the exotic tele lenses, 400TC and 600TC. They are obviously almost a no-compromise lens, but even they are constrained by price, size and weight etc. Think about the placement of the elements etc in these modern long tele lenses, they have been designed to have the weight more towards the camera for easier more balanced handling. This means more exotic elements etc thus pushing up prices but hopefully not impacting overall IQ and sharpness at distances where they deem the lens to be used most at. In other words, there will be a sweet spot of sharpness at a certain camera to subject distance range where it will be at it's optimum but mya drop off slightly either side of that range. It will be minor at best but it is going to be there. It is not just constrained to these two lenses, the 400 f4.5, 600 PF, 800 PF will also be designed to fit the parameters that suit their focal length and subject type. AF speed, AF elements etc, also go into this price, size and weight envelope.
You buy a lens for the parameters that best suit the application and the price envelope that you can afford. With that in mind, I think that this is highly subjective. Yes, the 135 f1.8 Plena is an amazing lens, but is it the best? At 135mm it probably is, it certainly is at that focal length for me. However, at 85mm, the Z 85 f1.2 is. At 600mm, my 600TC is, but if I want to go light and small, the 600PF is. As a zoom in the midranges, the 24-70 f2.8S is. As a super wide angle zoom, the 14-24 f2.8 is. at a short zoom, the 70-200 f2.8 VR S is stupidly sharp wide open and is the best. At 35mm, the 35 f1.2 is.
