This article reads as more of a "My idealized view of how to constructively review a research paper", rather than a concrete foundation to evaluate papers.

From the reviews my publications have received, it's quite clear that almost every reviewer (including myself!) has constructed their own ad-hoc mental criteria of what they're looking for in a paper. This encourages the evolution of highly-specialized, ultra-niche subdomains and conferences, where one wrong word can disqualify you as a "bad venue fit", and when you're writing your paper, you're trying to predict what the reviewers will think more than about the technical information you're presenting.

If a more objective, standardized review process (as implied by the article title) could be created, even if it was only applied at the meta-review level, I think this could provide some benefits.

Of course, that would require everyone to throw away their own mental models and learn a new system, so I think it's highly unlikely. But it's nice to imagine, isn't it?