It might be best to approach this from the perspective of: "What are we expecting when we invest in a new ski?" I'm curious so let's hear it!
At the extreme end of that expectation, imagine that we are expecting that a ski simply always makes it to the end of the course and we never fall on it no matter what. Put it on, tell the driver any speed and rope length, and you'll always run the pass no matter what. Is that what we are going toward with ski technology? If so, what fun would that be, right?
Since that's a fairly unrealistic expectation, here is what I look for in a ski, 34mph mid-35 skier ATM:
1. Does not want to kill me, aka a "non-homicidal ski". If I'm in a very poor position out of a turn, I should probably fall or be able to re-point. If the ski instead wants to keep going with me on it in a lean lock with no recourse, that is not something I actually want to experience.
2. While adhering to rule #1, the ski will turn, with me on it and in a recoverable, re-pointable position if needed, (particularly onside where I'm most likely to approach the buoy more separated and directly), with a WIDE array of pre-turn antics, alignment, and positions.
That's really it. It's a "game improvement iron" expectation in golf-terms. Most of the skis I've tried have satisfied requirement #1 lately, and the extent to which they do #2 without doing #1 has been what makes them better or worse particularly onside. For example the XTR team is bonkers onside. I like that. More than previous ski. It wins, that's a worthwhile upgrade for me. The rest of the course feels pretty similar to a lot of skis- gate, offside, etc.
If you look at any submarine or ship, they all kinda have to look like a submarine or ship. To some degree, we are probably reaching a point where a slalom ski is going to look like a slalom ski and do slalom ski things across the board just due to physics and material science.