I believe I've figured it out, or at least the general idea of it from other reviews they've had talking about the scores.
Optical Quality appears to use a single test using an 1951 AF resolution target inside a darkened structure, the target is rotated and the smallest group of lines the tester placed 100 yards away can make out in low light is the score, so optical quality only tests the optical resolution and low light ability under fixed conditions. The Zeiss Victory HT beat the Leica in both categories earning "A"s in both. That doesn't surprise me so much, usually the light transfer and resolution of the top rangefinding binoculars does not equal the top non-rangefinder binoculars. My Geovid HD's did not have as good of light gathering or optical quality edge to edge compared to my swarovski EL's, in the center they were about equal but the geovid's fell off a lot toward the edges.
The Perceived image score is a more subjective score based on comfort, weight, balance, eye relief, long term eye strain, controls, durability and use under more realistic hunting conditions looking at 3D targets etc, than a resolution chart in low light. It seems to be more of a "Go use these in the field for a couple weeks hunting and see how you like them" than just a light gathering and optical quality score. It almost seems more of an ergonomics/easy of use/satisfaction score.
If that's accurate, that's still a pretty poor showing in optical quality, that would mean a $1200 pair of vortex binoculars beat them in optical quality and perceived image quality and they essentially tied with a $500 pair of Minoltas between the two.
They could have received a poor sample (perhaps that's why they have been so late to the market) their testing standards might not be very repeatable and how much of that is a result of Ad dollars is anyone's guess