what actually separates the headphones that stay on the list from the ones that get dropped after a few months of real use?

curious what criteria are doing the most work when something earns a spot here versus gets cut. price ceiling is clear, but below that there's a lot of room for disagreement. frequency response flatness is the obvious starting point for monitoring, but headphones that measure well on paper sometimes have resonance or driver behavior that makes extended sessions difficult, and that kind of thing rarely shows up in a spec sheet. clamping force, pad material, and how the soundstage sits at low to moderate levels all seem like they matter more for actual monitoring use than for casual listening comparisons. is the list weighting those ergonomic and session-length factors, or is it primarily anchored on frequency accuracy and build quality at the price point? also wondering whether anything in the under-200 range holds up well enough on the low end that it reduces the need for supplemental monitoring, or whether that's just not a realistic expectation at this ceiling.