We don't get to set aside problems when they would undermine a premise of your conclusion.
Use of the benchmarks game as evidence must imply that you have confidence in that evidence.
The reality is often that other things will dominate. Things such as computational complexity, appropriateness and optimizations of data structures in use, I/O bounds, cache locality and specific details of the problem that will tend to reduce and not magnify the differences between languages near each other in a relative ordering, when things are done properly. Or slow things majorly when things are not done properly. This holds especially if idiomatic code is not anymore expensive to write in any of the compared languages, as is the case here.
Invalid + Invalild != Valid
> they do have utility as a coarse indicator
Which, once again, must imply that you have confidence in that evidence.
> Which, once again, must imply that you have confidence in that evidence.
Nope, think of it as a bayesian update which induces a non-zero but low relative entropy, with respect to the new posterior distribution.
What do you mean by "normalized" ? What "setting" ? What "domain" ?
> Nope, think of it as …
Think of it as being honest or not being honest.