The point of the numbers is to be a tool for the team, not management. If they get reported up it should be at most one level (immediate supervisor/lead, not middle or upper management). The information provided, assuming that the team is moderately consistent in their point assignments to tasks, is: Are we holding steady, slowing down, or speeding up?
Steady and accelerating are the good cases, slowing down leads to questions. "Why did we slow down?" "Oh, that task we gave a 1? Turned out it was actually huge because it involved X which none of us noticed or was more broken than we realized. Took up the entire time." Or "We brought two new people onboard and were spinning them up. They aren't productive yet and our experienced people were spending the time bringing them up to speed. We should get back to the normal flow in a few weeks." Or "We have no idea" which drives more questions. Or "We brought on two new people and spun them up, but now their estimate inputs are changing how our tasks are scored so it will take a bit to figure out our new baseline."
All of that assumes the team tries to be consistent in their scoring and is reasonably stable in its composition. If you're changing out team members frequently, then there is no value from points (because they won't be stable). If your team decides to fuck with it by rolling a die and using that for each one, then there is no value either.
When you change your processes in some way (and assuming a stable team and scoring), then you can also use the velocity over a series of sprints to evaluate the effectiveness of the change. If it hurts, you'll see a long term decline, and if it helps you'll probably see an initial decline (learning) and then improvement.