First of all, the third column here is highly editorialised. If you have a look at anything related to languages, he always lists Erlang, Oz, Prolog -- I wonder why? I won't go into a diatribe on this-or-that nonsense but it would be fairer to talk about languages by their capabilities i.e. either include more languages like Ocaml (which is my hill to die on for "high-society" languages) or just say "has pattern-matching and concurrency primitives".
As for the Systems Programming section, does he really think that knowing how a compiler works is a system-related topic?? and why is that level 1? shouldn't the first level be understanding things like system calls, filesystems, drivers, kernel operation? processes? etc. Once again I think this matrix has been constructed with little consultation from domain experts for that area.
I agree for the most part with the criteria for programming itself, but I need to nitpick at the claims about using IDEs. Why is "written a custom macro" a tier-3 requirement for IDE proficiency? wouldn't it be more reasonable to say "has written a plugin"? and moreover what does this really have to do with programmer competency? a beginner could write a macro or plugin for VS Code for example. Therefore I don't think it's a good marker.
I guess like most discussions on programming, it is about 60:40 in terms of objectiveness. The remaining 40% is largely grounded in the author's personal experiences and you can tell that he had trouble deciding what the top-tier programmers would be capable of, preferring largely complexity-increasing exercises instead of complexity-reducing tasks. And for me the latter is the sign of an expert.