My first instincts were that the adaptor might be at fault, but the more time I spent with the lens, the less the adaptor seemed to blame. The same switch from thick to thin adaptor transforms the performance of the Nikon 15mm and 17-35mm, but it makes no difference to the 28mm AIS or this ZF25mm. I'm awaiting Zeiss' response before coming to any hard and fast conclusions but at this point it seems unlikely to me that the adaptor is the problem.
Where the resolution of both lenses appears to be very close, as it was throughout the centre frame samples, it still seemed to me that the ZF consistently produced more attractive images. I think the final score 13/12 reflects that fairly.
It's a wiki world: please everybody test your ZF25s and ZF85s and N17-35s and let's see what happens. Even if my testing procedure is utterly flawless, it only evaluates one sample. When that one sample appears to fall below expectations, the onus falls on everyone to better it. It would only take one test in which the ZF25 convincingly outperforms a healthy 24L to prove that the design is capable of more. As I've always said: a bad result can have any number of explanations, but a good one is irrefutable.