The pass/fail qual was initiated by the Comm of Ma. after several cases were adjudicated where the leo's high score on qual was used against them in courts when they missed [ particularly injuring an innocent party ]. The pass/fail resolved that nonsense.
The head of our agency says he would never want to score 240. He said "if you ever shoot and kill someone they are going to say 'well you always shoot a 240 on your qualification, why didn't you just shoot the gun out of his hand?'".Hmmm, guess that leaves the Class G guys in Florida vulnerable in a court case after a shoot. :dunno
Regarding missing on the street despite high qualification scores, my argument would be:
As you have found from your records request I always shoot a 240 on my requals. This starkly demonstrates the fact that a defensive shooting bears no resemblance to shooting static paper, on a range, under controlled circumstances. On the range that target isn't trying to kill me, and I have 45 seconds to do the drill. In the instant case the "target" was trying to kill me (or my protectee) and I had about 3/4 of a second. You, and the populace at large, should be thankful that a person who scores 240 on their requals was the one doing the defending in this case or the outcome would have likely been much worse.
To their credit, some agencies (CIS for example) will only hire you for armed work if your G-qual score is at or above 90% (216/240) instead of the state-minimum of 70% (168/240). So in that regard having the actual score on the report serves a purpose. That said, I think it would be ideal if the copy that the officer retains had the numeric score, but on the copies retained by the Class K instructor and that go to the state, the numeric score area was blacked out and only the pass/fail result visible.
I would say if it is appropriate and beneficial for LE to report their qualifications as pass/fail then it should be seen as equally appropriate and beneficial for private armed professionals.