Numbers look spot on for the miles. The Universal Averages are based on 3,900 miles. You put on exactly twice that at 7800. So to get an accurate 1 to 1 correlation to the Universal Averages you could split you wear numbers in half, which would then compare correctly. The first numbers on the left are your wear numbers with a divide by two [/2]...
Aluminum: 12/2 = 06 vs 07
Chromium: 2/2 == 01 vs 02
Iron: 66/2 ===== 33 vs 33
Copper: 164/2 == 82 vs 89
Lead: 1/2 ====== .5 vs 07
Tin: 0 ========= 00 vs 01
Nickel: 2/2 ==== 01 vs 01
Silver: 0 ====== 00 vs 00
Titanium: 0 ==== 00 vs 00
Above, look at the two numbers on the right. That's a direct comparison to the UA's, based on the same mileage [your numbers halved]. So not only are they comparabed for this engine, but slightly better. When you consider that you're still in the break-in period & you had two track d, I'd say that is quite a feat! Based on those, I'd say the oil did exceptional in your case. This is why they give you UA's & tell you the mileage they're based on, so if you have a different mileage you have the ability to compare them 1 to 1. In your case it was easy as you had exactly twice the miles, so hving them gives you the accurate comparison