The Celestron White Paper makes no outlandish claims. Everything fits well for standard optical understanding. That's the design. If you want more detail, I'd suggest the book Telescopes, Eyepieces, Astrographs by Smith, Ceragioli and Berry (2012). Plenty there.
Once you've outlined the design, the next issue is how well its made so as to present the design qualities at a high level. Here there's always a problem - mass produced scopes vary a lot in how well they present the intended qualities. So it's important for the manufacturer to try to avoid outright bad examples - poorly made, or poorly assembled. They can't afford the costs of making each individual scope to a very high standard.
Then there's how well the observer can see the quality of the images. Some folk have low standards, possibly because they haven't met better quality scopes. Others notice some issues but not others. Quite a few have little awareness of off-axis coma, for example, or astigmatism near the field edge. That will affect their evaluation of a scope.
And of course imagers will have some different requirements from visual observers. Big CO in a scope is not an issue with imaging for deep sky; it can make a visible difference for visual observers especially for planets and double stars. Flat field? - how wide. Much less of an issue with smaller sensors. And field curvature can impact older visual observers more than young ones - the eye gradually loses accommodation with age.
So it may well be that a Meade ACF would be better than older design Meade and Celestron scopes for the visual observer due to the coma-free design; but it would need to be otherwise optically good as well. I've seen good and bad in both Meade and Celestron, but more bad Meades than bad Celestrons, and more good Celestrons than good Meades. Most over the past 40-odd years I've looked through were middling adequate. What I'd expect from mass production. The occasional one a stand-out.