There are probably more variables than I would like to / am able to admit, but I think I can respond to your questions with some level of confidence:
1. One of my curses, and one which has allowed me to get so far into wine at a relatively young age, is that I have an extraordinary memory for wines I've tried and tasting notes I've written. I will note that, over the years, if we use score for 'quanitative comparison,' the scores I've given to wine have more or less matched Rogov's, without (or at least I would guess) any inflation/deflation. So, I think that my memory is good enough to provide a basis for comparison. And everything I've said is of course totally, completely unbiased, spoken with godlike omniscience
2. My tastes, in terms of how I respond to the 'quality' of a wine have stayed pretty consistent, but my experience, and the quality range I am familiar with has vastly expanded. I believe that from the time I started writing formal notes, my evaluations have been consistent. But the context and perspective in which I see a particular wine is totally different.
3. Probably. I do acknowledge that price inflation may be the sole origin of this effect.
4. Geographically, comperable in the sense of the 'distribution.' But basically the same quality range: ordinaire.
The more I think about this, it probably really is just price inflation, together with the fact that I simply prefer the style of the 2000's. And actually, in terms of style combined with value, I think I'd even prefer the 2003's over the 2005's. But it's all just my opinion of course . . . .
"The sun, with all those planets revolving about it and dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else to do"
(avatar: me next to the WIYN 3.5 meter telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory)