Before this thread loses focus as long ones seem to, I'm going to summarize (again) where it seems to have gone, and why I asked about large objectives in daytime in the first place.
Years ago my father always carried a 7x50 Zeiss around the scenic places of Colorado, Arizona, and Utah. I never understood why: it weighed a ton, its rubber armor seldom saw a drop of rain, it lacked central focusing (we weren't birders, but still)... After many years of carrying a 30-32mm glass myself, now I have a 10x56 SLC that by some karmic principle weighs exactly the same, and am trying to figure out why I like it so much. In daylight, that is; in lower light, the advantage is obvious.
It seems that many people really like something about the view through good large binoculars, sometimes well enough to justify lugging them. Many struggle to describe what it is, nearlly all to explain why. The explanations tend to be borrowed from astronomy, where "aperture rules" both for gathering light and minimizing diffraction -- but the pupil is fully dilated in darkness. What's going on in daylight with a contracted pupil is more complicated.
Comfort of a bigger exit pupil? Definitely. Probably even more important with shaky hands.
Brighter view? It depends; thicker lenses don't help. With mirrorless prisms, maybe. And perhaps more as a peripheral effect than on axis, thanks to the larger EP minimizing vignetting. Then again, there's Nagler's reasoning about the brightest possible image even if your pupil doesn't accommodate all of it... I'm still confused about this. In any case, any difference is nowhere near as obvious as in lower light.
Better view of shadow areas? Maybe, if those areas occupy the whole visible field allowing the pupil to dilate further. In more mixed light, probably not.
Better resolution? Maybe, but not due to diffraction limits (that's your own pupil). More likely because you're stopping down a large objective to its central portion where aberrations are better controlled.
Better color detail? Some claim that this is an even more obvious advantage than greater resolution, but I haven't heard a plausible explanation for it yet given the limit of one's own pupil. (Or does this get back to Nagler's argument?) I'm not sure I've seen it myself.
Is that a good summary so far? This isn't exactly rocket science, so the degree of confusion surprises me.