Your data (plots) show that, contrary to expectations based on previous photographers' reviews, and contradicting your own words in the review, the edge-to-edge sharpness of the Canon 17-40 far exceeds the 16-35 II at any aperture and fl they have in common (ie, f/4 and smaller). In fact, the 17-40 performs almost as well as the famous Nikon 14-24, on comparable bodies, at any fl and f/# they have in common, while the 16-35 II is clearly inferior to these two lenses, based on your sharpness results (using your comparison tool). There are some issues with vignetting and lateral chromatic aberration in the 17-40, but those are easily corrected in software these days, while sharpness cannot (easily) be improved in post.
These results on the 17-40 are surprising based on what has already been written in the past, comparing the 17-40 to the 16-35 (II). In fact, your own review (text) that accompanies your plots basically overlooks the data, choosing instead to echo previous reviews -- which, again, are inconsistent with your data. I am puzzled that you would not speak to your own findings (data).
I don't understand your reply to "Smokes the 16-35?" above. That person has a valid point. In response, you imply that any f/2.8 lens automatically gets a higher score than a similar f/4 lens, which doesn't make sense.