Rockwell's comment about the focus being "dead on" refers to it being a contrast detect system vs. a rangefinder which can be miscalibrated (there's no guarantee that there's any correlation between the focus system indicating a target is in focus and the lens actually being in focus), he's comparing it to a Leica M9 not a DSLR. It's careless writing but does not contradict comments about the performance of the AF system. In fact he say this later:
The continuous focus mode (AF-C) for moving subjects, is crummy. The X-Pro1 can't respond quickly enough to track anything. This mode only focuses on the very center of the image, making it useless even if it could track action.
And later still:
Manual focus works swell, so long as you don't try to use the manual focus ring. The manual focus rings don't work: they respond slowly and with long delays, so forget about them.
Personally, I think Rockwell's reviews are great, but idiosyncratic.
I don't get how this camera can be rated above the NEX-7 for "value", it seems like the reviewer allocated points to get it within one point of the NEX-7. The NEX-7 is cheaper, has cheaper lenses, and more features. Likewise, I don't see how a camera with lousy AF can get such a high handling score â€” what does handling mean if lousy AF doesn't impact it?
The X-Pro1 seems like a great camera for people who want that kind of camera (if I didn't spend most of my time snapping small kids I'd be sorely tempted), but coercing a qualitative review into scores like this is nutty. About the only scale which seems vaguely objective would be image quality, and we've got DXoMark for that. (I'm sure the X-Pro1 will get solid scores.)
Rockwell's review is far more thorough and doesn't include pointless numerical scores.