The idea behind these criterion isn't to perfectly capture the creditworthiness of the applicant rather to give a general idea of their creditworthiness.
The aim is to be better than nothing. Also different cultural aspects play role in this too. For instance in West (at least in America) a lot of people don't take calls from unknown numbers (unless your phone is for professional use), whereas in other countries like India, taking calls from unknown number isn't an issue.
I am not trying to be mean. But that is sort of how it has work. Think about it ... Let's say 50% of a creditor's debtors failed to pay on time -- while 100% of those who failed technically had the money? This would be devastating to the creditor as they would miss their payments and make them look bad and potentially prevent them from having the ability to lend money out in the future.
So on some level its not just about the ability to pay, its about the diligence. A lackadaisical debtor can be just as bad as a broke debtor. Not that I am calling you lackadaisical.
As you sort of pointed out - creditworthiness is not just the ability to pay, it's the predictability to actually pay.
To prevent this on my end I always run my bank accounts with a few months of cash forward so I can set my credit accounts to auto pay a minimum or in some cases full balance. Carrying debt is not something I really want to do.
That's the thing though, based on this article these signals for credit-worthiness would actually be damaging for me despite an otherwise perfect credit history. I take issue with broadening the scope based on societal norms.
If these are used to fill in a non-existent credit history that's one thing — but as factors in an already existing credit history they feel a bit troubling.
I am not sure if you have this capability but have you tried auto-paying the minimum balance?