Ahhh… yes… standards.
As one of my earliest mentors in the industry once said to me at the age of 23, fresh out of college and about to jump off a bridge out of pure frustration, having built an EIA-RS232 Standard Cable only for it not to function as designed after the 100th occasion where I plugged it into another manufacturers peripheral. I screamed, “What’s the point of having a standard if everyone in the industry does it differently?” He placed his hand on my shoulder in a fatherly way and said:
Son… we have standards so that we know what we deviate from. 
While it’s a lofty and admirable goal to attempt to create a standard method, the issue at hand is that everyone’s use-case differs slightly. So if you ask a room full of 10 subject matter experts on any topic, you will get 13 opinions. As @Alex_vG pointed out, Stefan at CNC kitchen has been the only one to actually attempt to apply scientific rigor to such a process. He clearly is simply trying to show that he is the smartest guy in the room and I’m not knocking his efforts, but his methodology can be easily picked apart as having numerous testing flaws.
I think in the end it would be to your benefit to simply make a list of what you consider important to you. As an example, like you, after I could not find any consistency in methodology among filament uses, I just resigned myself that I had to figure it out on my own. In my case, I keep a spreadsheet of simple parameters that I know I can validate myself and not subject to opinion. I do this for tracking purposes that might help me when deciding between buying the next $12 vs $13 spool. Here is a simple list I keep.
- MFG
- Date Purchased
- URL of the site I purchased it from
- Cut and paste description of the product as it appeared on the website.
- Price Paid
- Technology claimed to be in use(as an example PLA+ is a Bullshit term that has zero industry agreement)
- Incoming weight.
- Weight after being dried(I only use this for Hydroscopic filaments such as PERG, PC etc.)
- Weight of the empty spool(This is to keep the filament maker honest and to also know what the TARE is of the empty spool).
You’ll note I don’t even attempt to record slicer parameters. For now, until there is a way to export this from the slicer into a CSV table, it’s a pointless effort in my view, with little return on investment.
The other “attempt” at standardization that I try to adhere to – most of the time – is that when I save all of my filaments in Orca, I preface the profile name it with a consistent prefix that is “easier” to scroll through. This gets harder each new filament I add. That format looks like this example:
You’ll note that in some cases in my example, I may have calibrated a filament previously only to second-guess my calibration once a recent spool performed differently. In those cases where I suspect deviation, I will append a date to the filament profile to create a new copy, and then I will recalibrate from there and compare any differences. While this might not make sense to anyone else, I don’t give a rat’s ass because it makes sense to me. 
I have found that among filament makers and technologies, there can be a number of deviations among deliveries. Such is the utter lack of quality control out of China. In some ways, buying filament looks more like buying coffee or wine as a bulk commodity; I find that it’s more about the “vintage” of the material you get than the brand. Prusa is the only one in the industry that tries to compensate for this with their tracking QR code providing all the stats from that production run.