I have three thoughts.
First, shouldn't you be sampling from a population that is similar to the one you will eventually be testing? This is unlikely to be a "normal" population. We generally don't test everyone for everything. We often test because we already suspect the person may have the condition. Yes, there are exceptions. A "regular check up" will generally include some tests, such as blood pressure and body temperature. But most tests are not like that.
Second, diagnosis is often based on multiple tests and observations. A good diagnostician will rely on all the information they have.
Third, while cutoffs and absolute decisions are sometimes necessary, I think this is much less common than we think. The results of testing (for most diagnostic tests) will be ambivalent. They may be very ambivalent, or they may be strong in one direction or the other. And those results will be used to help determine treatment. What is that treatment? Is it potentially harmful? What are its risks? All this should be discussed with the patient.
Therefore, I would emphasize estimating how different results from the test relate to different likelihood of the disease, in combination with other symptoms and traits, and in light of the risks of treatment.