I don't dispute that. But in this case, even if stated and tested, the hypothesis and evidence would only partially overlap what a speaker should do.
And the hypothesis is not even stated. In fact, it is vaguely assumed from the evidence! The ready availability of frequency response measurements is leading people to think that they self-evidently represent human hearing and speakers.
If they were forced to state what they thought were the 'laws' of frequency response to any sort of standard beyond vague (not even stated) 'rule of thumb', their claims would fall apart. Instead, we have 'target in-room responses' that suggest (without stating it) that human hearing is a sliding frequency response window, and an entire industry and
philosophy of managing the resulting unpredictability and disappointment has developed around this.
The ideas person would know that the in-room frequency response is ambiguous and cannot tell you what is direct sound or room sound, but that a human can. They would know that, at least, a 'Spin-o-rama' measurement would allow you to get a handle on which is which and how to get a better match between them.
Or (much better) they could approach it from the other direction: define what the ideal speaker should do and design something to realise it (as close as practical). In this case, the design would not be based on evidence at all, except for final confirmation and (this being the real world) refinement.
How many people would be prepared to define what the ideal speaker should do before they go looking for evidence? Not many.