I don’t think that any of the OPs “Bulls**t” effects are actually Bull? In fact, they are pretty much true. The Bull bit, is the amount of difference to the average rider that those changes will make, which is in all cases pretty much immeasurably small!
Unfortunately, for modern bike review/rating magazines, currently MTBs are all so good, and use so many of the same parts, that the differences between a “good” and a “bad” bike come down to minor technicalities and more importantly, trends and personal preference etc!
For example, no one is going to win the UCI Downhill world cup on a set of 140mm Fox 32 forks, and by the same token, I am not going to fit a set of 200mm tripple crown Boxers to my hardtail to ride to the shops, although in both cases you could do so. According to the mags, however, a set of Fox 32’s on the front of ones bike is the equivalent of fitting some stringy runner beans as forks, and will immediately lead to almost certain death!
So the “Bull” is not, for example, that the 32s are “not as stiff” as the Boxers (which of, course they aren’t) it’s that one should not be able to realise that “absolute stiffness” is not actually important, but relative stiffness is. Ie once your forks are stiff enough, that’s fine, more stiffness is no advantage.
But what this^^^^ dull and boring objective piece does show, is that the literal “truth” makes for very poor reading…….
