That's a fantastic idea! I just created an issue ticket on the bp.json repo for it.

I agree, it seems only the WAM is a bit subjective / manual. I agree, this could be improved. As a proxy voter, I think about the deliverables a BP supports as being quite important beyond just technical excellence as a block producer.

Unfortunately, in my 2+ years of DPoS experience, I have not yet seen a good way to measure technical excellence when it comes to block production. It's easy to become a popularity contest or a "how many whales do you know" activity. Measuring the technical competency of a block production team at doing the actual job of running reliable, secure nodes and properly evaluating code changes and (importantly) protocol consensus changes as they come up is not something very easy to score. When Block One is pushing out emergency security updates in closed conversations, for example, the wider world doesn't know which BPs have the expertise necessary to evaluate those change requests and respond to them in a timely manner. Due to the nature of those situations, the details of how they are handled should not be made public because of responsible disclosure and the importance of getting consensus witnesses patched and upgraded quickly before a vulnerability is exploited. It also means voters don't have all the information needed to make well-informed decisions.

Again, I applaud your efforts to improve the transparency of the whole ecosystem.