Meter, blinkies, whatever - it doesn't matter as long as the testing is carried out properly and to a protocol, what matters is the results of those tests.
I never realised softboxes were never used at 6 foot 
and not sure where your jelly bean comment came from, just makes you appear childish. If you want to join an adult conversation please feel free.
Actually, softboxes are very likely to be used at 6' or so, especially by beginners.
A softbox is just a tool that makes the light bigger. People are often obsessed by size without having any understanding of the importance of size. Quite often, they don't understand the relevance of relative size, so they just get themselves a big softbox and assume
1. That a big softbox will give them soft light
2. That there's something necesarily good about having soft light
And once they've got their big softbox, they find that it takes up a lot of room and is always in the way, so they stick it somewhere out of the way, they use it just to provide sufficient
quantity of light, with no regard for or understanding of the
quality of the light. With people like this, the softbox is very likely to be used so far away from the subject that it doesn't even act as a softbox. For people like these, your testing protocol is valid - but although this type of usage may be fairly common, just as drunk driving is fairly common, it isn't right.
I appreciate your previous post as well. The data from the 70 x 100 double diffuser softbox was similar to what i found when i did my own testing on my 70 x 100 stable imaging softbox (also has the internal diffuser) using a Lumidisc on my LM directed at various point across its surface at practical distances away from it in my case.
Having a double diffuser doesn't make a softbox good, and doesn't bring with it, any kind of equality.
Years ago, before Lencarta came on the scene and before I was able to interfere with the design of their softboxes, I discovered Chimera.
At the time I was working in an advertising studio in NY NY and Chimera was what we had. When I returned to this country I discovered that none of the softboxes available over here were either designed or made to anywhere near the Chimera standard, so I bought a few, at silly prices. At that time I was doing a LOT of fashion photography and the thing that the Chimera softboxes had was that, in the right hands, they made cheap clothes look more expensive
This was due to a combination of things, but very largely due to the qualities of the front diffuser, which allowed their softboxes to create high local contrast as well as low overall contrast. Using a cheap softbox may in fact create skewed figures because often, there is more light in the corners/at the edges than there should be, not becaues the hotshoe flashgun has filled the softbox well but because the inner diffuser doesn't reach the walls of the softbox!
Photography (generally) is a fairly high tech industry - you don't get lenses being made in someone's garden shed, but softboxes are very low tech and literally anyone can make them, and both East and South Asia is full of cottage industries that make badly designed softboxes from poor materials, with no understanding whatever of what it is that a softbox actually does. These people just copy another copy of another copy (etc) and all that matters to their makers is saving money - please don't assume that all softboxes are the same, they aren't.
When used by skilled lighting people, softboxes are a precision tool and as such the illumination they produce needs to be very even and very controlled. I suppose it's arguable that the people who use hotshoe flashguns in large softboxes may not notice uneven lighting, but the testing protocol should really be suited for every user, not just a sub section of them.
There is of course no such thing as the correct distance for a softbox, it depends on a lot of different factors, but there are times when a softbox has to be used so close that it is literally just out of shot - that's when even lighting becomes paramount.
Sometimes, we don't actually want to have even lighting, there was a question on this forum a few weeks ago about creating uneven lighting for a crash helmet, my answer to that one was to create uneven lighting deliberately.
And sometimes we need to create uneven lighting simply because one part of the subject is much closer to the light source than another,
this lighting blog on photographing shoes mentions deliberately creating uneven lighting to achieve the required effect - but the uneven lighting is deliberate, it isn't down to chance.
Moving it closer would have caused unnecessary problems with light fall off, due to the effect of the inverse square law. The shot on the left does have patent leather in places, so the overhead softbox needed to be much closer. I got around the problem of the inverse square law simply by sticking a bit of neutral density gel over the left side of the softbox, to reduce the amount of light hitting the left side of the shoe, which is much nearer to the softbox.
