"However, we do have to pick a winner, and that car, by the hair of its chinny chin chin, is the CR-V, with a strong nod to Honda’s brand equity and the resale value it presents."
I find it problematic (at best) to include resale in a comparison test like this. Most families are shopping on a budget and are only concerned with current outlay. Perhaps residual value will matter if you are leasing, but may be offset in this case by Nissan's more aggressive discounts in addition to it's better initial value. With this many unknown factors, I believe that resale is best just left out of the equation. I was bemused when after the Rogue smoked the CR-V in value, you compared other trims to see if it got better (It didn't).
"In the end, though, Brendan probably put it best: “The Rogue is a car I’d like to drive a long ways, and the CR-V is a car I’d like to own for a long time.”
What?!?. So the vehicle with less comfortable seats and serious design flaws in the infotainment is the one you want to own longer? The only serious flaw mentioned in the Rogue is installing the Child Seat which may or may not be an issue depending if other car seats work better. It likely can be overcome. The less comfortable seats and useless infotainment system are forever.
Finally this: "...it doesn’t feel quite as granular as the CR-V does".
I looked this up and still can't figure out what is meant here. There is a modern usage where a boss might request "more granularity" (detail) in a report. Perhaps you mean finer detailing in the CR-V ? Here is a discussion on how the word is (mis)used to make people sound smarter when plain English will do just fine.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/53266/is-the-word-granular-a-synonym-for-the-word-specificGiven the above, the outcome seems contrived. On paper and on the road, the Rogue appears to be the clear winner.