Test patterns, whether downloaded or homemade, don't furnish any useful information unless you're seeking a lens specifically for photographing flat, two-dimensional objects oriented parallel to the image plane at a fairly close distance.
(Otherwise you're just gathering info that seems impressively precise, but isn't really accurate. Illustration of precision vs. accuracy: Suppose I put a profile on a dating website stating that I'm six feet, 3 and one-fourth inches tall, weigh 177 lbs 6-5/8 oz, and have a net worth of thirty-one million, six hundred seventy-two thousand, three hundred forty dollars and fifty-seven cents. All those figures are extremely precise, but none of them are accurate!)
Most of us are interested in messing around with these C-mount lenses not in the interest of best photographic performance (for which we'd be better off with the kit lenses or Four Thirds lenses used via an adapter) but for the impressionistic or atmospheric qualities they provide.
For those types of use, it's important to know whether a given lens will require machining or not (although this may depend on the type of adapter you use) and it's useful to know whether or not you'll get dark corners at various format sizes. One-word subjective evaluations of corner smearing and bokeh might be useful as long as everyone remembers that they are subjective.
But beyond that, I think the only really useful information comes from looking at photos that make use of the best qualities of a particular lens, regardless of what those qualities might be. I don't think we can come up with a useful quantitative way to evaluate these lenses other than for their simple mechanical and optical properties.