Anders,
Thanks again for the translation.
I usually only do boosted resolution testing using the USAF 1951 on the pairs I own, but I've also learned to recognise where my eyesight or the binocular is limiting what I can see. Judging by the values on that chart, the testers were assigning a value to 'sharpness', not resolution. What 'sharpness'' actually means is pretty vague and very much down to the individual, but usually involves contrast and colour contrast, but very much dependant on the limitations of the tester's eyesight and perception. I'm pretty confident there would be a broader spread in scoring if they had actually measured resolution and the order significantly altered.
Brightness is quite difficult to evaluate by eye. There seems to be a trend on the forum to refer to pairs with a stronger blue balance in the transmission spectrum as brighter. Testing laboratories might report an average between specific wavelengths, peak value or level at 555nm, the peak of optical sensitivity (green). All quite confusing.
I'm not sure what they are referring to by contrast. My guess it's colour contrast, and they are slightly favouring a degree of red bias, but who knows?
This is a constant problem with many test reports, and few go without a high level of criticism on the forum, specially when they add up different aspects of performance to generate a score.
At the end of the day, buy what you like. With experience what you like may change, but at this point in time I liked the Countryman HD more than the Verano HD, but I don't like it as much as the Zeiss FL or the Kowa XD for example, but then I would expect expert testing to go a some way to explaining why? This doesn't do that. On my kind of budget I'd call the Countryman HD a very good choice though.
Good luck with your own evaluation.
David
PS. I sent a personal message earlier.