Hmm. I wonder....

Pendragon is a great system if you want to play a specific version of Arthutian mythos in a specific style. Terrible for D&D style high magic dungeon crawls. As a plus though, the game book itself (although not always the people proposing to play) is quite clear on that.

What if you go with:
1. What the system says it does, mechanically and thematically.
2. What it actually does do, right out of the box for people who take it at face value.
3. What it does in experienced hands applying best practices.
4. Rate the game on how well it meets it's own goals, with the understanding that tbis may vary dependent on the skill of the users.

There are games I wouldn't play with inexperienced DMs. Some because of system complexity on the DM side, others because they lack critical guidelines & guardrails. There are games that don't play well if the players aren't... not "experienced", more like the game works on certain expectations and themes that the players need to be able to understand. Like a superhero game that collapsed because half the players couldn't hero.

I can't say those are bad games. Just that there are users that don't have something (experience, expectations, adaptability, just something) that the system needs to be properly used.

Maybe adding "Does it work well for the intended audience?" and "Does it communicate who that audience is?", in the list somewhere.