If the sole criteria was definition in flat light, would you still consider the ChromaPop superior?
Definitely, especially if the darkness, i.e. VLT (visible light transmission) is similar.
Advanced apologies for the technical explanation: The acuity usually is defined by chromatic aberrations, i.e. how much different colors of light follow slightly divergent paths (visually you perceive it as sight fuzziness in the lines). There are two sources of aberrations: internal stresses in the plastic (if you ever looked at a clear plastic lens through a polarizing filter, this is what you see), and the intrinsic dispersiveness of the material. Trivex (ChromaPop) wins on both counts. It has less internal stress and its intrinsic Abbe number (which measured dispersion) has a value of 44 or 42 if I am not mistaken, almost as high as glass (45). Polycarbonate Abbe number is 21, so those lenses are intrinsically fuzzier than Trivex. As I said, I find the difference significant enough that I prefer my regular-tint Trivex (NXT) lens to my storm-tint polycarbonate Prizm lens.
Also, a quick explanation of why pink tints are better than yellow in the storm. Different color of light scatters differently with blue light scattering way more strongly than the red light (this is why the sky is blue). pink (red) tints cut out the strongly scattered blue light, reducing overall scatter and increasing contrast. This is the whole rationale behind Prizm technology, it is not rocket science, you will notice that all Prizm lenses have a red base.