I don't understand why in the table of definitions at the top, the definitions of "deficient" and "wanting" reference "community support".

It seems like you're crossing the beams. I'd expect this evaluation to be based solely on each proposal's technical merits, which in turn would then help drive consensus. Having it contain this recursive metric of community support seems unproductive.

Also, some labels reference community support and others don't, so the scale is internally inconsistent.