In our book those numbers equal medium, poor and unreliable. We are not limited by low FC's in anything but cross wind component but we have to do the math.
For landing we use the Canadian Runway Friction Index as a guide when the for certification purposes established dry and contaminated performance data isn't applicable.
For take off there are no CRFI-tables (not in our book anyway) and all we have to go by is the manufacturer supplied guidance (Cessna in this case) for water, snow, slush and ice covered runways based on JAR25X1591.
The problem is that tables in the AFM are based on type, depth and percentage of contamination and that's obviously (and unfortunately) not something that one normally gets from the ATIS or equivalent.
What I then use is a table that "translates" the FC to something that can be put into our AFM. Normal TOD for me is about 3000 feet (from the top of my head 04R is about 10500 feet) and given the FC of .30 for the first third of the runway I get a TOD of 3900 feet (we always use balanced field length). Since 3900 feet is a little more than a third I have to add some to that number since the second third has a lower FC of .22. This addition is purely based on common sense and in this case I'd add another 25% for good measure giving me a TOD of about 5000 feet. This might seem overly cautious but the FC trend is down going and why take chances?
So yes, the procedures are both company and type related. But regardless of everything else, an intersection take off a third down the runway in combo with FC of .22 and then .11 is plain stupid imo. And also, I don't think that all pilots are giving this as much thought as they really should - there are still way too many cowboys out there...