I see your point and generally agree, but today we live with the legacy of mountains of 180 contradictions from the Cold War era, objective truth may sometimes be beyond the grasp of humans IMO.
To take your example further, I don't think the results of MiG killing by the USAF is so much in doubt. UN says ~800. Admitted Russian and Chinese losses add up to the mid 500's, and the North Korean defector No Gum Suk said the KPAFAC lost 100 to all causes, so maybe a few dozen in combat, so seems ~600 altogether. The remaining discprepancy of around 200 is not shocking to readers of air combat history in other wars.
OTOH the communist claim/UN loss dispute is of a different magnitude, frustrating but intensely fascinating all the more for it. In this case one side said it shot down as many as 10 times depending on who counts, as many aircraft as the other side says it lost. Surely the result is in somewhere in the middle but not necessarily anywhere near exactly in the middle.
Focusing in on specific incidents, as you well know, there can be bizzarre contradictions between accounts: "they made one pass, got one of our a/c then left" v. " we battled with them for 30 minutes, and shot down 7, all but one". Or "all pilots returned safely" v. "two aircraft were shot down and their pilots found dead in their cockpits by our Chinese allies".
Searching for objective truth at this level isn't somewhere in the middle. Either for example, US airmen were shot down and killed but the incidents and their names not written even in dispatches stamped "declassified" over original stamp "secret" (which anybody can now get), and their comrades have presented a continuous wall of silence about them. Or there were fabrications or perhaps sloppy disregard of truth on the Russian side ("ah, the Chinese found a plane today, I guess it's the one we claimed yesterday, yes let's say that"). And there are many other such 180 deg oppositions on specific facts (serial no. of wreck recorded, no such plane with the serial in US records, or plane never served in Korea, etc.). Cases where if the Russians were correct and truthful, the US had to be lying. Russians didn't absolutely have to be lying, could have been hearing what they wanted to hear from Chinese and NK crash and wreck reports, but couldn't have been rigorously truthful if the US wasn't lying.
You can see where I'm coming from in the general conclusion I've begun to draw, but I think it's inevitable one gradually draws conclusions about relative credibility. And I'm not sure that process can be completely "objectivized". For example our friend and former poster here Diego, whose writing is extremely interesting to me, usually dismisses my opinion condescendingly "you're American I understand you must be loyal". An F-86 POW was recorded taken by the Russians May 20 1951. No mention in the many US first hand accounts written of that famous engagement nor any official records of the time, nor POW/MIA search efforts in the 90's. But the Russians say it, so it's probably true to Diego, he always includes it in his accounts of that day. He seems to conclude the US was (and is) lying to save spoiling the story of the first US MiG ace crowned that day. (An F-80 pilot was POW in the same location May 21 and not mentioned separately in Russian accounts BTW). I'm pretty sure the truth in that case, but it depends on an arguably subjective factor, my general non-belief in elaborate cover ups in the US lasting for decades relying also on veterans decades later to still cooperate. Yet still I want to know more.
I haven't read a lot on No Gun Ri, though as other posters noted refugees killed by the US when NK infiltrators were thought to be among them, or one case they couldn't be cleared from a Naktong bridge that had to be blown, not a new discovery. My gut tells me when I get around to reading all the sources on it, I'll find people's predispositions written into what evidence they believe or what conclusions they draw. One can only *try* to be objective in such cases I'm afraid I've concluded, not necessarily be *recognized* as totally objective by all reasonable people. What can be hoped for is people to look at all evidence and be inspired by contradictions to look further for more, not tend to quickly stop and say one side is lying.