You have to distinguish information directly obtainable form the bean (e.g. color, taste, chemical info) from information about the roast, prep, or origin. Ideally, any description of the coffee should be based on what can be verified directly from the coffee, without added information. Right now, the best way to do this is to cup the coffee, think about it, describe it, and based on your experience characterize it. Other standard measurements on the roasted bean itself, like color or density, or even exotic and supposedly complete ones, like MS/GC data, don't do as well. This is true of almost all food and drink, like wine, tea, or other foods; it reflects the miserable state of hard science knowledge about taste.
Unfortunately, experts are very frequently wrong, and always disagree, so cupping info alone is not enough. So we add adjunct information -- where it comes from, the origin stories of the growers, the care taken in prep and shipping, the timeless wisdom of the roasters, and whatever else we can come up with. Among the whatever elses are measurements taken in the roast and other parts of the tree to cup process. When presented with these measures, we automatically assume they mean something in terms of the bean's taste, otherwise, why bother? Unfortunately, the more I know about coffee, the less I think they mean; for me coffee expertize has been an education in skepticism.
Everyone who roasts and cups knows that all the roast variables you mention affect the final taste. We even have some very slight clues in what way they affect it, but with endless exceptions and reservations. So the main point of tracking roast variables is to get reproducible roasts, not to characterize the bean's taste.
My skeptical advice: taste the coffee; keep the reproducible recipes for the roast and other prep factors; forget about everything else.