just got back from the exhibition......... with your points, I looked at the prints again. before i comment, let's not start a debate on traditional b&w vs digital b&w. let's be objective and base on the image itself.
from my observation.... even some of the traditional prints do have the problem in what you said in point 1...
a good black & white picture is not about what you said "pure black" and "pure white" shades on the print in point 2. Your so call "pure white" (zone 10)come from your paper..... if you use a very warm tone paper then your "pure white" is not "pure white" right, no??? Don't understand your "pure black".... very black as hi-dmax??..... there's a print that showed a car..... you means "pure black" (zone 0) as a patch of black on most of the right side??? ..... cannot even see the different between tire, fender, ground and the back of the car??.... there're other traditional prints display there also have this problem.... a patch of "pure black" no details...... so this is The beauty of pure black and white photography is hard to emulate in digital......... , Henri Cartier-Bresson have a few prints of foggy,misty winter shots which have very little black (zone 4/5?).......
your point 3.... even some of the traditional prints there have this problem...... with all your points... can i said some of the display look like digital prints......
... i'm not tones or "colour" blind..... i can see, tell between tones and contrast...... a goood picture and a bad one even if i never step into a darkroom before....that's also doesn't mean a guy pick up a film camera.... shoot some b&w film.... doesn't even know how,..cannot make his own good prints in the darkroom... can suddenly become a expert in the tradional b&w...
let's not argue over the method of making prints...... let's continue to take,show good images....
good luck to the exhibition....