How can anyone possibly critique film editing without knowing all of the shot selections that were available?

Either I'm approaching the entire subject incorrectly or the bulk of film editing analysis/criticism is borderline pointless.

For example, it's impossible to know if "poor editing" is the result of actual poor editing or the result of a director failing to film enough good shots to create a good and coherent scene.

This applies to "good editing" as well. It seems entirely possible to me that good editing could actually be seen as mediocre editing if the finished scene was compared against the shots left behind on the 'cutting room floor'. Example: much better choices were readily available but since the director did such a good job of providing quality shots that a poor editing job still resulted in a quality scene.