Regarding pros, since I would say profiling is really coming into the mainstream discussion (and by mainstream still limited to a minority but more than when some people would have their blades "rockered"), I would think that the majority of players and equipment guys are still somewhat rooted in what they grew up with, but that could be changing, seems like some guys are working through the process but I would imagine it is somewhat determined by their EqM and maybe more driven by skating coaches.
https://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/a-change-in-skate-profile-could-make-elias-pettersson-even-harder-to-handle-next-season-1.23911267
(My question, was 13' ever a "standard" profile? I always thought in the past TUUK skates were 9' and CCM 11' but of course that was what people would say, I don't know if it has any veracity).
Another aspect that I don't think has been tested is how long before steady state is established? Having a bunch of skaters swapping out profiles and running some tests may show quantitative performance data for someone who is new to a profile. What it doesn't show is how performance is affected in the longer term. There may be a learning period where the results are different. An expert skater may take time to really learn the nuances of a profile and the ability to wring every last bit of potential performance out of it. The problem is this is a process that takes a lot of time to collect that kind of data and very structured protocols (with enough participants representing each relevant variable, which also takes time to determine).
I've done a lot of usability testing for medical devices which includes a lot of GUI as well as physical UIs so I'm looking at this more as a geek. Testing can really validate or invalidate some strongly held assumptions. Initial performance vs. learned performance, external and internal perception of task performance vs. measured task performance. Not 100% apples to apples here but certainly some applicable overlap I think.