What murkiness are you perceiving when it comes to evaluating things, is this in response to a specific issue?
While we don’t really consider which threat models a tool/recommendation might be most helpful against, we do impose minimum standards for our recommendations, although these are not always clearly defined. For example, in the Librewolf thread I identified the trade-off between Librewolf and Arkenfox+Firefox, namely:
In this case we are not really making a determination about who Firefox+Arkenfox or even Librewolf might be for, but we have imposed a minimum requirement for our browser recommendations to have automatic and timely (security) updates, and our opinion is that this is an important feature to have regardless of threat model (thus determining threat models for either of these products does not seem very relevant to the decision to make this recommendation).
One problem in this regard is that the minimum standards are for the most part not clearly defined, although notably we do have them posted for our VPN and Email provider recommendations. I believe the stated intent from our team is to have similar criteria for all categories, however it is difficult to encompass every edge case, so most of these standards are being developed on the fly with common consensus rather than any sort of written policy. Should this be changed to hard, universally applicable criteria? Is there a way to quantify what should and should not be recommended on the site at all? I’m not sure what the answers to these questions would be.