Yes, but... Let's say papers A, B, and C are introducing methods. Often, each paper will choose to show the benchmarks in which their tool was the best. In reality, each tool might be better for a different task. If you understand the tools, and have gotten used to this kind of papers, you will probably get what each tool is good for. But the papers themselves are misleading, and people often just blindly use the "cutting edge" for everything.
Only recently, I watched The Wind Rises and I loved it. I do not know what it is. It still has the sensitivity and the aesthetics of Ghibli under Miyazaki, which I genuinely love, but at the same time shows a confusing and unobvious real-life story, and very real dilemmas.
I mean, yes, inaccuracy is another issue here. But I assume "the most numerous" means better than average, or at lest not the worst in its category (unless you actually standardize for the time since divergence, then there are probably some niche microbial taxa, some rare extremophiles, that are actually less numerous; still, surely worse than average).