NigelOnDraft;
If I want to know how much runway the aircraft is actually going to take to come to a full stop from a height of 50ft, I would consult the "Actual Landing Distance without Autobrake - Config FULL" to get an idea of what a very aggressive approach/touchdown would produce - (the landing is, as you know, practically no flare and max braking to a full stop, engines in forward idle thrust the whole time). Then I would consult the "Actual Landing Distance with Autobrake - Config FULL or Config 3" to see the effects of Brakes LOW and MED and the reduced flap configuration. Neither chart takes into account or requires the use of reverse thrust.
I fully agree with you that these are the charts, rather, more specifically, the "Actual Landing Distance without Autobrake - Config FULL" charts, which are used in ECAM work and other abnormalities covered by the QRH and in that work, wet and contaminated runway factors do indeed assume the use of maximum reverse on the operating engines/reversers.
But the raw charts in and of themselves present useful, practical and actual test-flight data that can be used independantly of factors applied in abnormalities and as such these raw distances are not affected by the use (or lack) of reverse thrust. The effects of maximum reverse are incorporated in the factors presented in the QRH abnormalities, (QRH Ch.2) under the WET and CONTAM columns.
The charts you refer to for planning purposes are indeed for Dispatch only and carry the x1.67 factor along with an additional 15% because the runway is always assumed to be wet. These numbers are not intended for use once in flight but are to check academic legalities for dispatch in re the above 1.67 and 1.15 factors. The actual landing distance charts have no such factors incorporated.