I am very surprised by your 78% rating of the Acer s7-392's display. Either the bar has been raised to monumentally higher standards (we know it has been raised, but was it raised enough to rate this screen, effectively, as just a little better than average?), or there was something subjectively unimpressive to result in your middling rating in view of the objectively highly superior specs. I mean, 300 nit brightness (ok, this is the one spec that is merely "average" today), 1600:1 contrast, 80% sRGB coverage, IPS wide viewing angles - where is the great shortcoming? How many 13" displays are much, much better, because a 78% rating implies that many displays, that you would rate in the 80s and 90s, are significantly better? I would have expected the overall rating of this marvelous piece of kit to have at least broken the prestigious 90% level, but looking at the components of the overall rating it seems clear that the "mediocre" display rating is what dragged it's overall rating into the high 80s.
Not as big a deal as I'm making it sound, but if I was the Acer product manager I would scratch my head and ask you: what in the world do we have to achieve to rank among the very best 13" Haswell ultrabooks in the market at this time?