An interesting aspect of this is that for hand-eye coordination tasks, 60Hz provides a perceptual smoothness advantage over 30Hz. There's some benefit to having a higher frame rate even if it costs some latency. I don't know where the trade off point is, but it's not always better to reduce latency if it means a lower frame rate. It probably is always better to have both low latency and high frame rate, but that's hard.
As far as the latency analysis, I'd probably just lump display latency all in one and not try to break it down further. There's some number of ms it takes from the GPU output until pixels are on-screen. Consumer TVs are worse than computer LCDs because the TVs now are doing all kinds of filtering. OTOH, consumer TVs are also trending toward 240Hz refresh, so there is a counter-force causing latency to go down too.
Someone else here mentioned there are two kinds of triple buffering, which I didn't know, but FWIW I was talking about the 3-frames of latency kind. There's also a 2 frames of latency kind, and it sounds like that's the kind you're talking about?
Anyway, I tend to think about game latency as simply 1, 2 or 3 frames of latency, depending solely on how much buffering is going on. That explains almost all game latency, and the games are bad because they don't run at 60Hz, tons of games run at 15-30Hz with double or triple buffering, so the latency is automatically bad. No other sources of latency are needed to explain why. There is the 1/2 frame of latency between input and when the system polls the input and recognizes it, that's fair. So a typical double-buffered game has 2.5 frames of latency, and then add on the display device latency, and that's the sum total. It doesn't need to be made to look more complicated than that, IMO.