DIN 45544 (1971):Rumpel-Meß-Schallplatte (Rumble measurement test record St 33 and M 33, Stereo and Mono). The measuring method is based on DIN 45539. 

Side A: Stereo L flank/R flank & Vertical/Lateral Recordings 315Hz with peak velocity 5.42cm/s and long plain groove until minimum diameter 120mm with normal recording (dense) pitch to test motor rumble.
Side B: Lateral=Monaural Recording 315Hz with peak velocity 0.54cm/s and long plain groove until minimum diameter 120mm with pitch 0.54mm/turn (=0.3mm/s). By using level recorder: check rumble voltage, the strength of acoustic feedback on turntable case or the influence of auto-stop depending on groove radius.
The rumble voltage ratio=20log10(output at 315Hz peak 5.42cm/sec divided by output at mute groove)
There is a reference to NAB-recommendation in March 1964. It is said that NAB's values (100Hz peak 1.4cm/s laterally recorded monaural) are lower than values measured with this DIN test record: about -4dB for monaural equipment and -7dB for stereo equipment because of velocity difference converted to 1kHz output and the nature of groove modulation (DIN/IEC=Stereo 315Hz while NAB=Monaural 100Hz). Moreover the measured value according to NAB is unweighted only. 315Hz is selected because it is the limit of weighted curve as well as linear section for evaluation. Peak velocity 5.42cm/s is selected because it is comparable with velocity 10cm/s at 1kHz after passing IEC/RIAA equalization (time constants 3180/318/75microseconds). But -5.32ｄB(=5.42/10) as recording difference between 315Hz and 1kHz was not exact! Hence accurate value 5.51cm/s for 315Hz based on recording difference -5.18dB is adopted later in IEC98(1987). IEC 60581-3(1978) also indicated 3.83cm/s rms (5.42cm/s peak) based on old data from original RIAA etc before computer calculation based on time constants became easy. The specific recording/reproducing dB point at 300Hz instead of 315Hz had been indicated in early documents and in early 1970s someone estimated dB for 315Hz and this incorrect figure had been used repeatedly without checking. The correct recording/reproducing dB for 315Hz was indicated as 5.2dB (rounded from 5.179) in IEC98(1987). IEC98(1964)&BS-1928(1965) indicated correct curve for 20Hz-20kHz while the recording curve presented in DIN 45537-1962(Monaural LP record) had irregularity for 30Hz-200Hz (30Hz -17.5dB in DIN45537-1962 vs correct value -18.6dB in DIN45547-1981 for stereo LP) whereas time constants for these standards remain unchanged irrespective of mono or stereo application. We find this kind of small deviations in old documents. It was already known in Japan by 1973 that original RIAA dB numbers had irregularity - JIS S 8502-1973 indicated correct dB up to the second decimal.
My note: SN rates are actually differing by the radius of mute band to be tested. This point is neglected in recent test data. In many cases SN ratio at inner groove is better than SN ratio at outer groove. I suppose some reasons:
A: Height variance due to warp might be small toward inner radius of record.  
B: Stylus friction on a groove might become small as per groove velocity in contradiction with the usual theory of kinetic friction.   
C: Unbalance on revolving platter due to the stylus pressure is decreasing toward inner groove.
Rumble due to mechanical imperfection at turntable together with Hum due to electric induction mainly at pick-up system can be measured as SN.  For example: Playback output of certain signal groove measured as 5mV, playback noise of plain groove measured as 10μV, then SN ratio is calculated as 54dB. I think SN ratios more than 35dB unweighted and 55dB weighted as demanded in DIN 45500(1975) &IEC 60581-3(1978) are practical enough as minimum performance target: it is in vain to seek extraordinary big numbers since the SN ratio of vinyl records [due to lacquer's particle size more or less 50 angstrom and vinylite composition with additive such as carbon black powder etc] is usually under 65dB at 1kHz weighted by hearing curve and under 50dB unweighted. I am astonished to read the technical leaflet attached to Denon test record XG-7001: "This band consists of non-modulated grooves that are provided for the purpose of measuring the signal-to-noise ratio of the sound system...If these grooves were to have been cut using a common cutting head, there would ensue noises such as hum, so a special non-modulated groove cutting head without any moving component was assembled and used to cut these grooves." I don't know how about the plain grooves in other test records for measuring SN ratio. Anyway a deformation-free dust-free plain groove is required for SN measurement.   
IMO: I. It is of no use to measure mechanical rumble alone. II. The "rumble" is an obsolete term since any modern turntable don't make audible rumble as in the early times. 
Some methods to check mechanical imperfection or strength as the deflection of the revolving plate were presented in JIS C5521-1975 (Testing Method for Record Turntables)" as follows:
Each measurement is tested for turntable excluding record mat (i.e. bare platter). Measure with dial gauge (high sensitive type with measuring pressure requirement less than 30g).  
(1) Static height variance: Without rotating a turntable, put 50g weight at the radius 125mm on turntable and then shift the weight to the opposite place (125mm). And check the height variance of turntable at radius 125mm. Weight 50g is selected in consideration of the current VTF less than 10g and safe rate as x 5.
(2) Revolving height variance: With rotating turntable, check the height variance at 10mm inside from the rim of a turntable.
(3) Revolving lateral variance: With rotating turntable, check the lateral variance at the rim of a turntable.
Each Evaluation of (1) & (2) : The deflection of turntable =height variance at testing point (mm) /testing point (mm) on a turntable.
Though these JIS methods can check mechanical imperfection or strength, the method (1) is not suitable for turntable with floating suspension. According to a test report found in Japanese audio magazine around 1980 about first-class 11 turntables from the world (various drives: DD/BD/Idler and various suspension and construction), static height variance according to test (1) was maximum 0.04mm, revolving height variance according to test (2) was maximum 0.23mm and lateral variance according to test (3) was maximum 0.21.mm. These figures are negligible if compared with mat flatness and record warps.
Besides above JIS, in 1978 Thorens supplied a Rumpelmesskoppler (rumble test coupler maybe inspired by Rabinow's USP3653255-1972) to measure mechanical rumble noise arising from spindle (literal "rumble") - as a result  generally 6dB to 10dB higher SN comparing to conventional method using test record could be indicated by this method (free from the quality of a test record). Hence I believe that any modern turntable is free from a mechanical rumble and its SN is mainly influenced by the electrical circumstances. SN is changing in accordance with actual arrangements and nominal SN indicates only potential under ideal (not hearing, only measuring) conditions  - it is unreal for users who play records under non-ideal conditions (various acoustic/mechanical feedback upon hearing). Aforementioned Japanese testers (using both conventional test record and rumble coupler) reported interestingly that the measured SN ratio was affected by conversation in the same room (the turntables to be measured were placed on anti-seismic board).

DIN 45539(measuring method)&DIN 45544 (rumble test record) both March 1971 were later accepted as international standards. Filter for unweighted curve was modified a bit in IEC98-1987 since low frequency resonance between arm mass and cartridge compliance might affect the unweighted measurement. Left from DIN with my additional remark 6dB/Oct filter versus Right from DIN IEC 98 issued in 1989 as German translation of IEC98-1987.  It seems that the subsonic filter of rumble measurement as per IEC98-1987 was made as a compromise between DIN 45539-1971 and JIS C5521(band-pass filter 300Hz-6ｄB/Oct & sharp subsonic filter 30Hz 24dB/Oct or 40dB/Oct applying to the output for a plain groove at radius 120mm for LP and at radius 80mm for EP). I  make NAB bandpass filter visualised with handwriting. I find a cool passage in this NAB(1964): "This measurement is intended to give a measure of electrical effect of the low-frequency noise output of a turntable pickup combination. Since the result depends on the equalizer, pick-up and arm characteristics as much as on the turntable itself, it is not feasible to standardize a turntable alone. The measurement reflects the electrical effect, not the aural annoyance value, of the low-frequency noise. It has been found that strong low-frequency noise at a frequency and intensity below audibility may create severe intermodulation distortion in an audio system, and that in modern systems with extended low frequency response, this may be more serious than the audibility of the low frequency."
I  prefer the term "SN for a whole system" to "mechanical rumble".  Usually weighted S/N only is indicated since its number is around 20dB higher than unweighted S/N. I cannot understand the meaning of weighted S/N since motor rumble & its acoustic coupling to plinth/arm/mat is lower than 315Hz: mostly 10Hz-250Hz. Then what is the use of low cut filter from 315Hz? Hence spectrum analysis method has been recommended by some testers (Yamamoto in 1971 & Ladegaard in 1977 etc). Also in IEC98A-1972, beside conventional Method A for general use, Method B applying spectrum analysis instrument was introduced as follows: "(This method is intended for specialists' use, when an analytical result is required)...By means of a measuring instrument, the voltage Uo produced by the reference signal is measured at the output terminals of the one-third octave filter whose mid-frequency corresponds to the frequency of the reference signal. A search is thus made across the frequency spectrum determined, and for each of the bands concerned, the voltage U at the output terminals of the one-third octave filters are measured and the ratios 20 log U/Uo are determined."
There are two routes of coupling or feedback within a turntable system: I. motor - driving mechanism - platter - mat - record - cartridge - arm and II. record  - cartridge - arm - turntable board/plinth.  I & II are in a loop. In my test using Mechanic's Stethoscope during playing record I could hear music clearly on arm-base while the noise at spindle was not clear. Hence I suppose friction noise between stylus and record is more troublesome than turntable spindle noise. Sometimes electric transformer and high-speed motor for belt or rim drive produce higher vibration although they are suspended by rubber usually. I think the reason for higher S/N for DD drive might be its low-speed motor centered at spindle while other drives push platter and spindle to the side wall of bearing sheath so that maintenance for lubrication is required periodically. DD with oil-sintered bronze for bearing sheath is maintenance-free for years. We find the pro and con debate on specific driving method, but driving methods are hardly related to sound quality though one can have fixed ideas or delusion. One holds/appreciates what one has (ceremony of wedding?). Actual sound difference if any is arising from turntable construction (cabinet supporting arm/turntable/motor, plinth/cushion and the stiffness of mat) and the location of turntable system. 

A or x  curve to be applied on the output from a mute band: unweighted for 20Hz-315Hz for measuring Rumpel-Fremdspannung=Rumble interference voltage 
B or y  curve to be applied on the output from a mute band: weighted with high and low cut filters from 315Hz for measuring Rumpel-Geraeuschspannung=Rumble noise voltage
My note: In these DIN/IEC graphs, symbol  +/-  for dB/Oct is omitted conventionally. 

Above JIS comment "no gurantee for S/N under 30Hz" is puzzling. It may indicate the limit of recording (cutting system for lowest frequencies could not have enogh MFB to head). Recording of mute groove (0Hz) had not perfect plain surface actually.
The evaluation of SN for record itself is limited to 500Hz-10kHz etc as shown in JIS S8502.

Hum measurement as per IEC98 (1987): Use the same record as the Rumble test (315Hz velocity 5.51cm/sec using L/R/Lateral modulation) and calculate The hum voltage ratio =20log10 (cartridge output at 315Hz peak 5.51cm/sec divided by hum induction output) separately for L/R/Lateral. When measuring hum voltage, the stylus point should be located in the range of radius 5-15cm from the centre of spindle, and the needle should be setting 2.5mm above revolving platter (locating the stylus point virtually at the same level of playing actual records, no mention on record mat ???). Check the left and right channels and indicate the minimum (= worst value) for stereophonic system. IMO: The various shielding states of cartridges influence this hum ratio in actual measurements so that hum rate is not specified in recent products. In JIS C5521-1975 (Testing Method for Record Turntables) definitive method for measuring hum induction level using spherical search coil instead of cartridge is presented, but I never know it is applied actually. SN measurement as the result of whole system is already enough though SN ratio is also influenced by actual circumstances such as mat/cartridge/arm/cable/step-up transformer etc besides turntable.

DIN 45545 (1966):Gleichlauf-Meß-Schallplatten für 33 1/3 und 45 U/min (Wow and flutter test records for 33 1/3 and 45 rpm)

These records are applied for measuring wow and flutter based on DIN 45507(measuring equipment for frequency fluctuation) and DIN 45539(measuring method). Measuring frequency recorded horizontally is 3150Hz. Record itself shall be manufactured within ±0.06% (unweighted about ±0.12%) fluctuation of frequency. And wavy height change hindering optimal centering by means of using the concentric groove shall not exceed 0.3mm. The test record based on this standard was assigned to DGG.

W&F evaluation curves: left as per DIN & right as per old JIS before 1972 for example.  NAB & JIS C5521-1975 adopted DIN/IEC evaluation curve though there remained difference in expression among peak/rms/mean. Anyway usual W&F analog meter will rectify the signal (with a special slow-quasi-peak full-wave rectifier designed to register any brief speed excursions) so that they have essentially same meaning relatively, only showing different numbers: theoretical rate 1/0.707/0.636 for peak/rms/mean respectively in case of sinusoidal modulating frequency. For example JIS 0.25%rms is equivalent to DIN/IEC 0.35%peak. We cannot compare the measured specifications of equipments without knowing the measuring method and its evaluation curve. Though this measuring method with W&F meter is established and accepted widely, one can doubt its efficiency because it is based on "slow-quasi-peak full-wave rectifier". Also there is the battle among measuring methods. J.Mcknight (Ampex) reported in IEEEM (1972) (here the term "flutter" covers wow and flutter): "The old IEEE/ANSI flutter measurement standard did not predict subjective flutter; it also failed to specify several important characteristics of the meter. Comerci proposed a "flutter index" method but it was never adopted. Results of several workers were incorporated in 1962 in a German Standard (DIN) Weighted Peak Flutter measurement. The NAB flutter measurement of 1965 incorporates the frequency weighting of the DIN Standard, and the volume indicator of Comerci. CCIR adopted the DIN method in 1966. Experiments in the U.S.A. comparing the DIN and NAB methods showed the DIN method to be more satisfactory, and this method is incorporated in the new IEEE Standard 193-1971, based on an IEC draft. Circuits to achieve the desired time and frequency responses are given, as well as suppliers of commercial flutter meters and test records to the new standard." Test signal must be recorded laterally because vertical or one channel recording might indicate other factors than wow & flutter of turntable: the movement of stylus on sticky record may be affected more in vertical or one channel recording than lateral recording. In my experience, the wow&flutter values measured on test records are not reflecting the status of wow&flutter in hearing the usual (dirty/sticky) records. Sometimes after cleaning contaminated record and stylus, I find the wow&flutter as well as the amplitude of low frequency resonance is reduced to some extent. Stylus drag cannot be made null in stylus tracing method, but it can be reduced to some narrow range after cleaning records. Hence load specification 80g for instance in direct drive turntable is of no importance. Even if the turntable is rotating at constant speed under fluctuating load (random frictional forces) by the stylus drag, the movement of stylus is nevertheless affected by the stylus drag itself. This aspect of stylus/cantilever movement is often called as "stick-slip behavior/motion".  BTW: Have you heard Laser Turntables by Finial/ELP? They have no stylus and no stylus drag since their pickup method is optical (the nominal diameter of laser beams each 2 micron). I feel the reproduced sound by Laser Turntables noisy because they are apt to be influenced by fluffy dust. Hence they are promoting record cleaning machine together with turntable. In usual stylus tracing method, mineral dust is more disturbing than fluff (stylus with considerable VTF can wade or plow fluff). There are mainly two types of dust:1) Fluff produced by our living 2) SPM (Suspended Particulate Matter under 10micron) containing rock-mineral (quartz etc) and clay-mineral (mica etc). Dust becomes sticky when they are combined with oily matter evaporating at cooking or smoky particles by smoking tobacco etc. You shall not touch recorded area by hands lest friction between stylus and groove might be increased by fingerprints and sebum collecting dust. 
We can be aware of wobbling sounds due to the interference between direct sound and reflected sounds even when we reproduce pure tones from test CD with CD player. Usually we ignore our room acoustics in real circumstances.

Example of unweighted & weighted filters (Leader LFM-39A manufactured in 1979 so that filters are same as DIN).
I tested my old equipment (cassette and turntables) - See my Japanese Page. In my test, cassete tape recorder/reproducer had higher rate of flutter over 6Hz compared to turntables (maybe due to "scrape flutter" of elastic tape). Meanwhile, both cassette reproducer and turntables had similar rate of wow under 6Hz (around 0.05%). In case of turntables, the centering of test record is affecting measured wow rate critically.  Lower flutter over 6Hz in case of turntable is natural result from higher rotational inertia of rotor+platter+record. IMO: Record stabiliser/weight has not increased inertia so much [W&F rate is unchanged] while the added weight will increase the friction at turntable spindle.

Conventional measuring process of W&F: 1) reproduce the recorded signal 3kHz or 3.15kHz with cartridge or magnetic head 2) input the reproduced signal to measuring instrument > amplifier of signal > discriminate (separate) fundamental frequency (3kHz/3.15kHz) from modulating frequencies (W&F) > (test terminals for oscilloscope) > add or not add evaluation curve for hearing compensation > DIN/JIS/NAB switches for indicator (analog meter).   IMO:  DIN/JIS/NAB switches are converting amplitude for indicating 1(peak):0.707(rms):0.636(mean).
CCIR(3kHz input) position of LFM-39A has no difference from DIN(3.15kHz inut) posityion since both adopts peak value. Hence comparable between JIS and CCIR as DIN for 3kHz source. 
LFM-39A is equipped with 4 sets of test terminals: OSC OUT 3kHz/3.15kHz, TO SCOPE AC, TO RECORDER DC.  
W&F is similar to FM waves: original signal (music component) modulated by other frequencies (W&F component).

My note on conventional W&F meter. Why fundamental 3kHz or 3.15kHz is selected? It is said that the sensibility peak of human ears is located around 2kHz-3kHz. Moreover if fundamental frequency is nearer to modulating frequency, then more sharp LPF is required otherwise W&F 0.1% (-60B) cannot be measured. The reason why modulating frequency upto 200Hz is enough might be another story (acoustic psychology). The acoustic psychology (tests carried out by Eberhard Zwicker in 1952 and NHK in 1955 etc) tells us that human ears are most sensitive to wow (modulating frequency) 3-6Hz so that weighted curve for hearing compensation is decided. Upon my hearing of FM waves generated experimentally, even through PC speakers I can hear clearly WOW of 3-6Hz upto -50dB=0.3% as something like beating echo sound while I could not discern W&F of any frequency at less than 0.1% - thus I can reconfirm conventional theory: "there is no real problem in sound quality as far as continuous W&F (excluding any peaked thrust from groove irregularity) is lower than 0.1%". I suppose this is the reason why IEC recommends groove eccentricity to be within 0.2mm. Wow caused by 0.2mm eccentric groove: 0.14-0.33% for music band for LP can be reduced to less than 0.1% weighted with hearing compensation=1/3(-10dB at 0.55Hz according to chart). The minor frequency difference between 3kHz and 3.15kHz is negligible because the filter band of W&F meter can handle centre frequency +/- 10% as input. Usually the measured figures weighted with hearing compensation (evaluation curve) is indicated as representative value.
When the frequency counter is mounted on W&F measuring instrument, its counter shows centre frequency so that it works as drift meter (indicating average frequency in certain time scale)- I could not see any swing of drift meter during my measurement of W&F by above instrument. Frequency counter with smallest "gate time" is required to see actual rapid frequency variation,  hence it is impossible to measure wow-flutter by usual rpm meter or frequency counter (indicator of the normalised results after sampling within gate time). Some W&F meters can indicate W&F unweighted/W&F weighted/Wow/Flutter separately in combination of indication JIS/DIN/NAB etc. 0Hz-6Hz as wow and 6-200Hz as flutter in many conventional W&F meters (when modulated with threshold frequency 6Hz and 1% amplitude, meter shows 0.7% each for wow and flutter). Meanwhile current IEC calls 0.1Hz-10Hz as wow range and over 10Hz as flutter range. Now IEC standard based on DIN remains valid. Nobody care about the end of standards: Almost all JIS standards about analog records and equipment were stamped as "abolished" by 1984 or 1994 at the latest while some old standards are walking alone as living ghosts without knowing their death. IEC would adopt 20 years rule from last revision then IEC98(1987) too becomes such living ghost. 

Conventional W&F measuring method in order to get simple numbers is almost dated because W&F and rumble and low frequency resonance are involved in sound quality. JVC applied for Japanese patent 1981-47903 (patented as 1279820)  proposing test record 3Hz-125Hz (vertical amplitude 20 micrometers) sweep superimposed with 3kHz or 3.15kHz. Its measuring method: reproduced sound>flat amplifier>W&F meter>(discriminated frequencies)>recorder. What is notable in this documents: "In some cases the low resonance between cartridge and arm does not affect the higher frequencies of music while in other cases the heavier intermodulation and degradation in sound quality arise from rather flat response of lower frequencies". This method intends to know the sound quality of record player as system including arm and cartridge.   I think Ladegaard already proposed similar measurements in his Audible Effects of Mechanical Resonances in Turntables (AES Convention 1977) which is downloable from Vinyl Engine as article. You cannot get simple numbers by these methods, but are able to know the sound quality reproduced by record player as system. In my experiment too the W&F waves look different among cartridges even if the W&F rate is similar (I suspect FIM of cartridge in operation is much different from nominal value - frequency dependant). Each reproduced sound results from unique compound of several factors.

DIN 45549 (1980):Abtastfähigkeits-Meßschallplatte (Tracking ability-test-record) 

Object: In the first place this test record shall be applied for trackability test at 315Hz and 10kHz. It covers supplementary tests for trackability in mid frequencies for FIM measurements, sensitivity and rectangular modulation. Vertical modulation angle is 23degree for stereo recorded bands except B9-B16 monaural bands which are recorded laterally/sidewise=Seitenschrift. Bands A1-A2: 1kHz effective velocity 5.6cm/sec(=peak 8cm/sec) as reference tone, Bands A3-A7: pulse 10kHz with a 250Hz repetition, peak velocity 8-20cm/s interchanging between L/R for pulse test. Bands A8-12: 300Hz/3000Hz (4:1), 300Hz component peak velocity 4-10cm/s interchanging between L/R for frequency intermodulation test (each 2.5dB up for 400/4000Hz when playing at 45RPM instead of 33.3RPM)- see DIN 45542. Bands B1-B2: 1kHz effective velocity 5.6cm/sec(=peak 8cm/sec) as reference tone. B3: Rectangular wave 1kHz cut as triangle with amplitude 11μm. B4-B8: complex (Doppel) tone of 1.8kHz+2.2kHz (1:1) momentary peak velocity 10-25cm/s interchanging between L/R. Bands B9-16: 315Hz peak signal amplitude 50μm-120μm. Distortion rate in high frequency is measured with pulse 10kHz/250Hz while trackability in low frequency is measured with high amplitude horizontal recording of 315Hz. The distortion for high frequency after passing special filter shall be Dh=U(250)/U(10000) x 100 in %. I saw similar equation in leaflet attached to Shure Test-record TTR-103 (45rpm) (10.8kHz pulsed high frequency test with a 270Hz repetition). In low-frequency test Shure TTR-103 indicated Amplitude Intermodulation Distortion with  400+4kHz at 45rpm based on SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers) method. Quite different measuring methods for IMD measurement are imaginable: record Pink Noise excluding certain bandwidth and compare it with reproduced output range to measure distortion fallen in the band. Simple method for measuring tracking ability was once indicated by IEC98A in 1972 which defined the tracking ability as the minimum tracking force required to maintain contact between reproducing stylus and both groove walls on a given test record having "the average recorded levels found on disk records"(45 degrees R or L one channel sweep 80-8000-80Hz: max 18cm/s peak around 2kHz)  I imagine two objections: 1) The cartridges with highest compliance and lowest VTF are not always having highest tracking ability. In my diabolic definition: High-compliance cartridge is a type of cartridge which cannot endure drastic change of VTF. 2) What are the average recorded levels? Practically for tracking ability test, some audiophiles use the specific bands of commercial records which contain the difficult part (mostly high frequency & high amplitude passage with sibilant sounds) for cartridges. Hence the tracking ability tests are developed to more complicated methods maybe based on Shure: "A Practical High-Frequency Trackability Test for Phono Pickups" JAES in April 1972 etc. IMO: Tracking ability test in 98A in 1972 was based on average (its moderate intention is known from test record size 7inch and speed 33.3rpm) while the advanced methods are based on the extremity (as some audiophiles demand). Once I found difficulty in obtaining average performance reproducible everywhere & anytime as some old British Standards (rpm of car engine) require, whereas other standards allow to indicate maximum performance under optimum or optional condition. I don't know which is more user-friendly, but audiophiles are usually fond of extreme rate.
Current IEC 60098 Clause 14.9 Trackability is suggesting to use three kinds of test signals:
-A. Trackability at low-frequency with 315Hz/Horizontal Modulation. Its performance is indicated by max. amplitude in mm up to which a cartridge at recommended tracking force can trace without apparent distortion and tracking problem. The smaller rate of amplitude shall be adopted when the performance differs between channels. 
-B. Trackability at low-mid frequency with sweep from 1kHz to 20Hz/Horizontal Modulation. The output of these frequencies are equalised with IEC/RIAA reproduction characteristics so that the output voltage is stable within these frequencies. Hence velocity shall be indicated along with respective frequency measured. Its performance is indicated by max. velocity in cm/s up to which a cartridge at recommended tracking force can trace without apparent distortion and tracking problem. The smaller rate of velocity shall be adopted when the performance differs between channels.
-C. Trackability at high-frequency with pulse 10kHz (with repetition at 250Hz) LRLRLRLRLR. The output is amplified linearly and then filtered into components. Its performance is indicated by max. velocity in cm/s up to which a cartridge at recommended tracking force can trace without excessive distortion and tracking problem. The smaller rate of velocity shall be adopted when the performance under the specified distortion rate differs between channels. Also distortion rate in high frequency shall be indicated. Why impulse instead of continuous 10kHz recording? I suspect that continuous 10kHz recording at very high velocity can burn out driving coils of cutterhead as specified by Neumann SX-74 with cutter drive logic SAL74 as under. Lateral 28.5cm/s peak can be converted to stereo (45 direction) around 20cm/s peak. Even if juvenile cutting engineers fumble with Neumann and try to record continuous 10kHz 20cm/s, the cutting system can remain undamaged as far as cooling equipment is added.

DIN 45550 (1976):Schallplatten-Hüllen; Außen- und Innenhüllen, Maße und Beschriftung (Record sleeves; outer-and inner-sleeves, dimensions and inscription)     &    DIN 45551 (1976): Schallplatten-Kassetten für 30 cm-Schallplatten; Maße und Beschriftung (presentation-box for 30cm-record; dimensions and inscription)

The German people really likes norms -　I never imagined such specifications were existing. Jacket size for LP is width315xheight311 with side opening (inner thickness 2mm). Basic inner sleeve for LP is almost square(w309xh304) with circular cut for label. DIN 45536(Mono 17cm)/45546(Stereo 17cm) &45537(Mono 25/30cm)/45547(Stereo 25/30cm) are quoted as specifications of records though sleeve for 25cm records is not specified (maybe by 1976 the production of MP=medium play records is much reduced). See also my Japanese page about jacket, inner sleeve & box.

My Summary Note:

These industry standards (IEC/DIN/NAB/JIS) cover almost all the products specifying minimum requirements for not only soft but mainly reproducing equipment available at the times. Hence their specifications don't tell anything new/essential on music recorded groove radii. One thing I feel curious in IEC60098(1987) is about inner groove radius 63.5mm which is related to the performance of automatic player (my Kenwood P-5E Linear Tracking Player will lift arm around 60mm radius before finishing groove located around 54mm radius). In 1987 when CD players became already popular, it might be thought that record players could be also automated as seen mostly in low and middle price range of record players. 

It seems funny to me that some long time play-back records have not utilized inner radii to maximum. For example, one EMI/Seraphim record: Schubert String Quartet No. 14(Death and Maiden)=38min26sec on one side (pseudo-stereo made from monaural recording) and Piano Quintet (Trout)=32 minutes on other side (both inmost recorded radii are larger than 70mm). Usually it is said that LPs have 150-300 grooves per inch. Hence when music band width is max 83mm(146.5-63.5) then 490-980 grooves for 15-29minutes. The above EMI/Seraphim case: 38min26sec/75mm=about 433 grooves/inch - too fine pitch! I suppose that this record has not utilized extreme inner groove radius in order to avoid (expected) inner tracing distortion by the sacrifice of out-put level (dynamic range and S/N).

Lateral Tracking Error and its distortion: it might be critical (audible) only with recent elliptical/line contact tip in stereo groove esp. if anti-skating mechanism is not equipped on overhang-offset arm. With spherical tip in monaural groove, its distortion is not so critical even without anti-skating mechanism (or other distortions due to spherical tip are enough to mask this relatively small distortion?). Considering the inner groove is rarely less than 70mm for LP and if the inmost music groove radius is 63.5mm and outmost music groove radius is 146.3mm, an optimum arm design based on Baerwald method can be as follows: Linear Offset for Baerwald method i.e. peak distortion rating similar at 63.5/88.561/146.3mm is 96.04mm (instead of current Baerwald type linear offset around 93.5mm)
Null points: 69.2/122.8mm (instead of current Baerwald type null points: 66/120.9mm)
In comparison with current Baerwald type, this new design has wider offset angle and also increased overhang (hence higher anti-skating force required to mate with increased side thrust force).

Anti-skating mechanism is problematic. It is rare that the anti-skating force will match side thrust force due to eventual friction forces. Some Thorens arms have 4 different scales for anti-skating: wet/dry x  spherical/elliptical tip. The following graph shows imbalance of pressures on flank L/R for three representative designs of geometry (Stevenson/Baerwald/Loefgren) when anti-skating device is omitted (parameters: effective coefficient of stylus drag 0.3 and effective length of arm 231.2mm).
Note: theoretically the true coefficient of friction = 1/(SQRT(2) ) of the measured or empirical value since vertical stylus pressure is to be divided statically into VTF/(SQRT(2) )  each on groove flank.  Then stylus drag force is [VTF/SQRT(2)]*2*coefficient of friction=VTF*SQRT(2)*coefficient of friction. This tricky calculation is based on armchair theories because the VTF cannot be actually divided evenly during stylus drag.  Hence usually effective coefficient of stylus drag as empirical results is assumed to be theoretically equivalent to SQRT(2)*coefficient of friction. This coefficient of stylus drag 0.3 (coefficient of friction 0.212) for example is rather too small in comparison to the past investigations (coefficient of stylus drag 0.27-0.5 by Rangabe or 0.25-0.55 by JVC-1979 as shown in the following table).  The dynamic load of stylus pressure on the groove is never constant. Many factors are involved in the nature of stylus friction: stylus contact profile and record elasticity (depth of stylus dipping into groove wall by VTF - see my stylus.xls), groove modulation amplitude and frequency, mechanical impedance of stylus movement corresponding to such groove characteristics, and mostly dust and sticky substance on contaminated records and stylus tip.

There are some drawbacks in the actual performances of anti-skating devices:
1) The lateral balance is affected by adding bias force. 　
2) "Swinger" action of arm by the eccentric groove or off-centre record increases the stylus side-pressure more by adding this device. 
3) Non-mechanical contact such as magnetic or electromagnetic anti-skating device may be ideal. 　
Users after 1970s are satisfied simply by finding that such fashionable device or accessory is equipped on arm. IMO: Basically it is better not to use this device. Increase VTF around 10% if necessary. In my experience it is better than adjusting bias force of anti-skating device. To use such device or not to use is up to you. 

Note that the deflection of cantilever due to the side thrust force (skating force) is too small that one cannot adjust anti-skating force seeing the deflection of cantilever (see the following drawing and think coolly on the normal human eyesight). When we recognise apparently cantilever deflection during playing a record, then it has a defective cantilever or anti-skating force is too high. Hence both Dual Skate-0-meter and Orsonic Lateral Pressure Detector were invented as magnifying device to see cantilever deflection. Lehmann and Harnisch invented Dual "Skate-0-meter" and commented in their US Patent 3328037-1967: "To permit accurate adjustment, hitherto a record was used which had no grooves but only a smooth surface. The pick-up with its scanning needle was placed on the rotating disc and the antiskating so adjusted that the pickup remained stationary. Investigations have proved that this method is only apparently accurate. The actual friction of the scanning needle in a sound groove is different. Direct measurement of this friction, which as such gives a direct measure for the necessary anti-skating force, is however relatively complex."  And they recommended to apply Skate-0-meter on a plain groove with normal recording pitch while Nakatuka in his USP4183537-1980 recommended to apply Orsonic Lateral Pressure Detector on sound grooves for anti-skating adjustment. Also note that usually the bottom profile of stylus is unspecified or unpolished since such part of stylus is designed simply to have enough clearance from the bottom of groove. The higher stylus drag for higher frequency and higher amplitude can be attributed to the mechanical impedance of respective pick-up. In order to move stylus in higher frequency, there arises instantaneous higher stylus pressure to groove walls as reaction from undulating walls. Thus effective low mass or low inertia of moving parts is required for tracing such high frequency recorded groove with relatively light stylus down-force. Mechanically a pickup has three different (stiffness or compliance/resistance/mass or inertia) controlled domains in mechanical impedance curve. Typically: stiffness controlled domain (20Hz-1kHz* see note), resistance-domain (1kHz-10kHz or around) and mass- or inertia-domain (around 10kHz and upward) though its domain and curve of mechanical impedance (dyne sec/cm) is shifting up or down as per the make and design. 
*Note: "Compliance at 100Hz" in the specification for some Japanese cartridges must be considered in this lower frequency range. It is often misunderstood as if it would be intended for some calculations at arm-cartridge resonance around 5Hz-20Hz. In fact it indicates an index convertible to a mechanical impedance at lower frequencies for the purpose of obtaining the vertical stylus pressure required for safe tracking. It is concerned with tracking ability and not with resonance. Hence it is of no use for amateurs who try resonance calculation. Frankly speaking the required VTF value instead of compliance value is enough for users. Since 1970s Shure has not indicated "misleading" compliance value, but instead indicating VTF value sometimes together with trackability chart (max. traceable velocity [cm/s] per frequency under specific VTF).  The mechanical impedance [dyne sec/cm] chart for full frequency range (technically equivalent to Shure trackability chart) is more important than compliance at lower frequencies. Please see the relation among mechanical impedance, compliance and recorded velocity as explained in technical sheet attached to DENON test record XG-7001. By measuring the mechanical impedance, it is possible to know the stylus pressure required for tracing on specific velocity of record.  Think on the relation between Shure trackability chart and Denon mechanical impedance chart i.e., between velocity and VTF. Naturally it is concerned with the recordable and recorded velocity on actual records.

According to the AES report in 1968 by Toshiba engineers: "Trackability Test by Complex Tones and Biasing Force Effects of Phonograph Pickups": "Some of the so-called "high compliance" cartridges have produced larger I.M.D. under the specified tracking force than those of relatively low compliance. For low modulation level both cartridges have similar characteristics, but for high modulation level the former are much effected by side thrusts. Side thrust less than 0.05g is allowed for I.M.D. less than 10% for high compliance cartridges. From this, "high compliance" cartridges operating under small tracking force are not necessary good from the viewpoint of degradation by biasing forces". My note: I cannot believe 0.05g can be threshold for IMD less than 10% since all cartridges mounted on swing arms have received temporary side thrust more than 0.05g. Usual side thrust and antiskating bias at stylus point are considered average 10% of VTF. We must consider the nature of side forces (temporary or steady) and wherefrom (groove modulation amplitude and velocity or arm geometry etc). Naturally force from groove modulation (displacement) is generally larger than side thrust from arm geometry. BTW: In 1969 other engineers of Toshiba invented Photo-electric pick-up（GB1281912 & DE1941407）which could measure VTF as well as effect from side thrust. It is embodied as pickup C-100P and preamplifier SZ-1 enabling proper VTF adjustment although the biasing mechanism is omitted from embodiment. 
In JVC book(1979), Shibata as one of the writers commented as follows: "Cantilever deflection can reach more than a few degrees by side thrusts so that tracking angle error distortion is increased. To avoid such occurrence, the compliance should be kept not excessively high, and linear tracking arm (not swinging but linear shifting) is preferable". IMO: Deflection of "a few degrees" is contradicting to above drawing, but under certain stress loading for long time, cantilever may be deflected and not reverted to the normal position (permanently deformed damper). In my experience, high compliance cartridge with soft damper tends to bent its cantilever angle after long use: outward bent under 0 anti-skating force, inward bent under excessive anti-skating force. It is not easy to know the actual operating angles in both antiskating bias and tracking angle adjustments though some audiophiles are fond of such adjustments based on some devices. I find some cartridges having the cantilevers not located in the centre from the first. Personally I don't believe the efficiency of antiskating devices (gimmick/diagrammatic arm-chair theory/gadget) which ignore the resistance at arm pivots, effective mass of arm and compliance of cartridge.