And Focal uses a Klippel Analyser for driver development, so I can't imagine they just throw some drivers togheter to build a speaker.
Klippel blessed us with two different systems. First one is for raw driver measurement, the other used here for the measurement of the spinorama of a completed speaker.
Again, from the original question it is not at all clear what measurements are meant, neither is declared, how the measurements are interpreted.
In the unlikely case You care about "science" You for sure acknowledge that a measurement alone doesn't tell anything. It is the "model", the "theory" that makes a coherent understanding what it means. In its generality, combined with the meaningless buzz-word "high end", emphasised in all its glorious emptiness by "ultra" the question doesn't make any sense.
Translating science to engineering the science--referring to an operational model, a theory, then may state a target. The measurement would confirm "mission accomplished".
Reiterated, there is a very complicated story with KEF, England. At all times they were alone (!) reliant on measurements. No deliberate b/s (other than JBL in its history). But the operational model for the speaker as an expedient technical device has changed considerably. E/g, back in the day only the direct sound was considered. Directivity was of some concern, but only in respect to listening off axis. It resulted in the KEF Calinda, an 8" woffer/midrange plus a 3/4" tweeter crossed over at 3,5kHz. Compare to what they do today. Same utter reliance on measurements, different theory.
The original question spares out any thought about the relevant context. Buzz-wording no. It scrutinises the possibility of having two words in one sentence, namely "high end" and "measurement". I dunno who might be fancied so much by the canonical vocabulary from those blistering magazines. As explicated above, both terms are empty. The former always, the latter if not understood.
And then You debate, if a pro p/a manufacturer is in real engineering.