Just on Finn Aagaard's article on the .270, it's a good article but I do find it a bit misleading. He starts off saying that Jack O'Connor experienced more big game put down with fewer shots with the 7 x 57 than with anything else. The implication being that though Jack O'Connor touted the .270 in his writings, the 7 x 57 was better at putting down big game with fewer shots than the .270. However, the reason that Jack O'Connor made that statement about the 7 x 57 was simply that in his early days he used the 7 x 57 more than the .270 and also that his wife whom he accompanied on most of her hunts, used the 7 x57 as her big game cartridge. Therefore, he saw more big game being shot at with the 7 x 57 than the .270, and as a consequence, saw more big game put down with the 7 x 57. However, he considered the 7 x 57 as a down-loaded .270 and not quite as good, notwithstanding that in his later years he returned to the 7 x 57 because of the reduced recoil and possibly muzzle blast.
One problem with your analysis is that Jack himself used the 7x57 more and more as he got older, because like many aging hunters he became more recoil sensitive. O'Connor discussed this in at least one of his books....
Personally I have shot a pile of big game with the 7x57, both in North America and Africa, plenty of it larger than "deer" size, including wildebeest, kudu, elk and moose. Have also shot and seen shot plenty game of the same size-range with .270. Have never been able to see any consistent difference in how either cartridge killed....
