I think the article was an interesting read. From a laymen's perspective it felt like it got to side tracked by the examples mentioned in the intro (the initial list example and signal vs mls).

When I initially started reading I had thought there would be more information for how someone that is new to a subject could spot and differentiate these lists from the ones the author says the article isn't about without being an expert.

Instead it feels like the title of the article ends up being more of a sub header and the sub header "How Do You Compare Signal to MLS?" was actually a more appropriate title.

Interesting article, and I feel that it's pretty fair. At first, I thought they were talking about this checklist, but I see they're different. The version I followed doesn't seem to have the same issues (lists jurisdiction but doesn't give it a rating, doesn't list or rate encryption methods at all, no summary at the beginning, etc.).

I think checklists/matrices still have their place, as listing all the branches/options might get too cluttered for a diagram, but I do understand why flowcharts (or the neat venn diagrams that get posted here often) can express information better. I don't think checklists are inherently biased, I just think you need a good decision maker behind the list.