Some of the posters to this thread appear to have a Gospel-like belief in the wonders of V1 and this is a worry.
All certification performance is artificial in that the sums and the verifying tests are based on sets of assumptions which may, or may not, have all that much to do with real life.
If you are going to be serious about these things, then you need to know the ground rules and how the certification paddock was fenced.
This is made more difficult because the Design Standards are living, evolving documents .. ie, we can say that aircraft A, with frozen Design Standards appropriate to sometime 25 years ago, is a FAR 25 aircraft. Similarly, we can say that Aircraft B .. etc .. but with Standards appropriate to a year or so ago, is a FAR 25 aircraft. However, in the meantime, the Standards have changed more than quite a bit, so the two animals are quite different.
For those who don't have the detailed background knowledge, there is some merit in placing a degree of trust in the back room techo folk in the Regulator and the Operator.
Then again, the more knowledge the individual has, the better the likelihood that he/she can detect some of the occasions when it might not be sensible to trust too much in the information presented in the cockpit.