Here, the popcorn is on me =)
Recently I read a research article from a Swedish insurance company that tested helmets to a higher level of standard 25kph than the current 20kph CE (european standards). The core of the article was about rotational impacts and MIPS technology, the benefit of MIPS outside the laboratory can be argued but the thing here is tha many helmets have little protection against rotational impacts, also there is almost impossible to soak up the energy from a collision with a solid object at "normal" speed.
To reduce the force of a rotational impact you want a flat smooth helmet and preferably a layer to provide some gliding friction to get the force of the impact spread out over a longer time, such as a MIPS layer or similar. Even a pair of googles will generate more friction on impact, a badly designed camera mount even more.
Most helmets today are designed around tests that hit hard objects at a straight angle, the research papers suggest that helmets with softer layers that absorb more energy would be better than the standard hard helmets, e.g. in the test is the giro combyn helmet, this kind of helmets with softer layers also provide protection on light impacts. The expensive MIPS helmets from e.g. Sweet tested the best on rotational impacts, the more expensive helmets with soft layers tested above standard helmest also on straight on collisions.
Depending on what type of impact is the highest risk to you different helmets provide different levels of protection.
I do think that impacting a hard point and even a pole are in several helmet standards, but again hitting a rock or taking multiple lighter impacts, different helmets. Helmets are tested at 20kph to 30kph, most people ski faster than that and a front on collision with a stationary object at 50kph the helmet is probably of little use, a stationary object is probably lethal already at 30kph.