Not quite, if you have standing water, increased rolling and impingement drag (ie go considerations) are very relevant
Agreed but then you are into contaminated performance, as far as I know impingement drag is not considered in wet figures ie. <3mm of water/slush, more than that you have a contaminated runway which is also a 15ft screen of course.
Airmann, in EASA land there is no longer any such thing as a damp runway, there are only three states considered, dry, wet and contaminated. I don't know what has driven this change which came in a few years ago (?) if memory serves but it would be interesting to know. It may be the difficulty in reporting the state and certainly in the UK it has been many years since a runway was reported as damp.
It is now quite common to hear a runway being reported as wet when it is very obviously dry as far as actually stopping on it would be concerned which probably means that wet performance is being used far more than it was before and I am not convinced that safety has been improved.
Edited to add: Having thought about it I guess its obvious that the change has come about to try and reduce runway over runs which is how quite a lot of high speed rejects end up, perhaps there is data to show that these are happening on damp runways and had wet perf. been used it might have been avoided. All good stuff but its a difficult balance, just failing to stop at the end of the paved surface at most airfields is just embarrassing, just failing to clear an obstacle is going to kill you, 15ft is not much of a margin even with the gross/net buffer.