Agree 100% they will be variable.
I believe the accident report into the XL Airways Airbus accident (on such a test) goes into some detail about the procedures they were using.
I'll note that one of the findings was that such tests should not be approached in a 'cavalier' fashion, and indeed the OEMs and authorities have both been taking actions to try to plug the observed 'safety gap'. (Which is one reason OEMs are reluctant to have such procedures "floating around the internet" where they could be picked up and misused out of their proper context.)
From the BEA report ...
There is a great diversity in the description made by operators of non-revenue flights, in the context that they establish for the preparation and execution of these flights, and in the selection and training of pilots. This diversity, along with the almost total absence of any indications or standards on non-revenue flights, can also lead to more or less improvising the performance of tests or to performing tests or checks in inappropriate parts of airspace and/or during flight phases with a high workload.
Consequently, the BEA recommends:
- That EASA detail in the EU-OPS the various types of non-revenue flights that an operator from a EU state is authorised to perform,
- That EASA require that non-revenue flights be described precisely in the approved parts of the operations manual, this description specifically determining their preparation, programme and operational framework as well as the qualifications and training of crews,
- That as a temporary measure, EASA require that such flights be subject to an authorisation, or a declaration by the operator, on a case-by-case basis.