I think as a more general comment, as with almost all types of testing, no test is better than the proper execution of it. GIGO - garbage in, garbage out, always applies.
Obviously in this instance where doing a lactate-based test under the supervision of somebody, it’s not the athlete’s fault if things go wrong but the tester’s.
But the same principle applies to almost any test - the INSCYD critical power test, 20 minute FTP tests and so on. The major benefit of the ramp test is that it’s hard to screw it up, and it is a major benefit (although it also has many drawbacks and I’m not a fan of it overall). For the critical power testing, I’ve had to ask athletes to redo a certain part of the test many, many times, because you can’t just plug numbers into a system and hope to get useful results out of it. Hope is not a strategy. You have to check that the execution was on point and the results aligned with each other (e.g. if 20-minute power is only 75% of 4-minute power, there probably was some sandbagging going on and the 20-minute test needs to be retaken). I assume it might be common to see ‘lazy testing’ just like lazy coaching, just plugging in the numbers and vomiting out the results without thinking and verifying that the test was good.
The same phenomenon happens on an athlete level with a number of “automatic-profiling” systems, where it’s easily happened to blindly follow an automatically calculated threshold (or something else) without ever stopping to think if it is a valid number based on high quality data.