Now that I can see the final table (thanks for the working link) to easily compare the results, I do have a few more questions. What do the results actually mean? How are they weighted? Does a stopping distance result of 4.5 mean it took more than twice the distance to stop? Why are there so many typos and coding errors? (For example, "Geolander", or the Michelin gravel climb score.) Was that lack of attention to detail present in the testing as well?
What steps did they take to avoid any hint of confirmation bias? (In other words, thinking a certain brand did the best in subjective testing because they already liked it.) They don't really say. Was it all blind testing? They don't mention the actual test data much, just that they were collecting some. It gives the implication it was mostly subjective assessments backed up with a little bit of test data, like how long it took to climb a hill.
I'm left to conclude it may or may not have been a good test but it's a poor write-up. I suspect driver ability will make a bigger difference than tyre selection.
The BRIDGESTONE DUELER D694 or 693 seems to get quite a few good feedback via exploroz forum.
What do you guys think with the 694 or 693 on a XT that mostly sees seal road with the very infrequent dirt or sand?
I bought the D694 after reading many many reviews of many different tyres, including
here in the US, where it's called the Revo. (I see they have a Revo 2 there now. The tread pattern seems less open than the Revo.) I note that most of the tyres there are very very close in their total review scores, with the Pirelli of the Aussie test in 15th place. Of course, a lot of the results on that site could be just due to marketing, confirmation bias, etc.
In my view the D694s are very comfortable - more so than the previous 60 profile tyres I had - and are very good on road, although I sometimes wonder how their rolling resistance affects fuel economy. They're slightly noisier on some road surfaces and when pushed hard around corners, but not as bad as I'd been expecting and I soon got used to it. On sand I reckon they like digging, which makes me a little surprised at the Aussie test result, but they ran theirs at lower pressure than I like to have mine because on the local beach there's lots of high speed driving on firm sand. My size (215/65R16) doesn't have the same extra-reinforced side walls as the larger sizes. I've heard them referred to as "rock chuckers" for people following behind on gravel roads but haven't managed to confirm that; the last guy I went off road farm driving with (a couple of weeks ago) had them on his Terrano but it didn't seem to kick up any more stones than usual when we were on the farm roads.
For the proportion of on

ff roading I do I admit they're not the most sensible tyre choice. They're probably overkill for what you're looking for.