Flawed definition of grade?

I obtained the paper the old fashioned way - visited the UCLA stacks in person. It's a little over 20 pages long.

I'm still skimming through the paper, but one rule is that the mid-tone contrast needs to be higher than the original subject.

In the three photos below, I digitally simulated the effects of the two alternatives being discussed.



The middle and right photos are the two ways of handling a paper with lower Dmax, as you would get with a matte surface, for example.
The left photo is the original with a high Dmax.
The middle photo keeps highlights and midtones about the same, and handles lower Dmax by letting shadows go black, losing shadow detail.
The right photo is a scaling of all densities, keeping all detail, and handling lower Dmax by losing some contrast.
Do you prefer the middle or right photo, and why?

Not much excitement about this topic. But it's important if you deal with paper with very different Dmax's.
The ISO definition of grade yields the right photo (maintain dark detail and reduce contrast). The middle photo shows a shortcoming of my proposal: Sometimes shadows are important. In this case, the woman's black hair has lost its texture, becoming a blob o' black. So I think ISO got it right: For the same grade at a lower Dmax, it's better to reduce contrast than reduce shadow detail.

More from Jones.

"Our analysis of the statistical print judgement data revealed that for maximum yield of high quality prints a surprising rule should be followed: For the soft papers, the density scale of the negatives should in most cases exceed the sensitometric exposure scale of the paper, whereas, for the hard papers, the density scales of the negatives should in most cases be less than the sensitometric exposure scale of the paper."