.... methinks that you might possibly be a man on a mission or with an agenda ?
(a) you see an important distinction in the definition of "static" .... and it is obvious that you know something which I don't .... as I don't have a relevant AFM or similar, perhaps you can list the definition to which you refer for the benefit of the readership and we can take the discussion from there ?
(b) for interest, by what instrument(s) do which "authorities" require to see routinely achieved levels of takeoff performance with the threat of punitive action if this does not occur ? (noise monitoring runways and CAA style CofA renewal tests aside).
(c) I still fail to see the justification for your unwavering preoccupation with 0.87 TODA unless the particular takeoff is, in fact, AEO TODR limited .. in which case the aircraft should achieve something in that region, AEO and variations of the day and particular hull not considered. Clearly we cannot comment on a particular study relating to variance without details of the relevant report.
(d) re the CX pix (nice shot), one would need to know the circumstances on the day of the photo to make any rational observation.
It might just be that you are trying to infer too much AFM-derived precision in real world operations when that may not be justified.