First of all, did you notice the date on that PS 6.0 85 review? Yup, August 1999. As we all know, the numerical ratings of racquets in TW's reviews are not consistent from quarter to quarter, let alone year to year, and this one is 8 years ago! Did you also notice the names of who did the playtests? With the exception of Granville, ALL the other playtesters were DIFFERENT people with their own opinions on feel, what they like or dislike, their past experiences with similar racquets, and how high or low of a number they want to assign to the "feel" category. It's basically a made-up number, not a scientifically measured number, so it can be pretty random depending on how important feel is to you. I know, as I've done many playtests for TW and have assigned tons of my own numbers to different categories.
BTW, a "true PS 6.0 90" would be an exact cross between the PS 6.0 85 and the PS 6.0 95. Well, did you see the TW ratings for feel for the PS 6.0 95 in the exact same review as for the 85?
Here's the rating for the PS 6.0 95 - "Touch/feel" got 79.
So if the PS 6.0 90 is right in between the PS 6.0 85 and the PS 6.0 95, as it should be, then the midpoint of the two ratings is (90+79)/2 = 84.5, which is the same rating that the K90 got!
Thus, if you want to go by the touch/feel ratings given by TW, the PS 6.0 90 would have a rating of 84, which is the same rating as for the K90. Thus, the K90 is indeed the PS 6.0 90 according to your numerical analysis of the touch/feel based on TW's ratings.
Lastly, how are only 5 TW playtesters the "general consensus" out of the millions of people that have played with a PS 6.0 85 and/or K90?