The main drawback to doing the tests you talk about above, without first knowing if the FFD is right, the ground glass is right, the movement timing is right, the lenses are collimated, and the motor speed is right and consistent, etc. is that if everything on the camera is spot on (and I hope it is) then you are really testing your ability to light a scene. But if anything on the camera is off, you have wasted the money on film cost, processing cost and telecine cost because the way you are going about testing, the final results on the film will not tell you specifically what is at issue.
As an example, let's say the image on the film is soft or slightly blurry. What caused that? Could be FFD was off, could be Ground Glass was off, could be the lens is not collimated, could be the diopter setting was off, could be operator error. Without first knowing the camera is to spec, you can't have any idea what causes the final image on the film.
Let's say your image is underexposed/too dark, or overexposed/too light. What caused that? Could be motor speed is off, could be the iris on the lens is off, could be operator error, etc. Again, without knowing the camera is to spec, you can't have any idea what causes the final image on the film.
That is why I suggest having a camera service tech, with the right equipment (it doesn't have to be me), check over your camera first, then once you know where the camera stands, then do the film tests you describe.
And while we are on the subject of the final image quality from an Arriflex 16S/B camera, let me take a moment to rant. There have been a number of posts on the internet, most on You Tube, that show images shot with the Arriflex 16S or 16S/B camera. I want to correct something, those images are in no way representative of the quality these little cameras can put out. They are soft and underexposed and look like home movies from the 1950's (now maybe this is what the directors were looking for on these pieces, but I kind of doubt it). The footage tells me that either the operator did not know how to operate the camera and light a scene, or the camera and lens were out of spec.
An Arriflex 16S/B, with Zeiss Super Speed Mk1 lenses, will create the exact same quality image as a $60,000 Arriflex 416 camera with the same Zeiss Super Speed Mk1 lenses, with the only difference being that the 16S/B will create an image that is Regular 16 while the 416 will create an image that is Super 16. Otherwise the image will be identical. The reason for this is that the Arriflex 16S and 16S/B are professional production motion picture cameras, just from an earlier period.
Even one of the earliest Arriflex 16S cameras, with lenses from that same period, can make very high quality images. The footage linked to below was shot on an Arriflex 16S that was made in 1957, with a Cooke Kinetal 25mm lens from that same period. The camera was completely brought back to original ARRI factory spec, and the lens was collimated and cleaned. You can see and judge the results for yourself at the link below (It's a good size file, so give it a bit of time to load):1957 Arriflex 16S w/ Cooke Kinetal 25mm lens