I'd guess that for the desired characteristics -- masculine, trustworthy -- respondents wound up applying a sort of 'handicap theory' analysis to the names. That's the idea that in certain status/fitness competitions, sometimes strength is signaled by demonstrating the ability to take on otherwise costly/tangential burdens. (A peacock's feathers and other sexually-selected exaggerated characteristics are the classic examples.)
That is, certain flaws in the names actually indicated: this brand is strong enough not to pander. 'Rowe Brook' is a bit mysterious. Probably a name, but one that is uncommon, not definitively gendered, and perhaps prone to mishearing (that silent 'e') or teasing puns. A person with that name, and choosing to use that name for their business, has nothing to prove and isn't cloying for approval: hence the high 'trustworthy' rating. (Two of the lowest-trustworthy are pandering: 'rogue ethike' and 'unbeholden'. Real unbeholden rogues don't have to remind people they're that way!)
'Pistol Lake' is sure to turn off a few people due to its gun-association. But again, the subconscious reasoning among a wider audience may be: if a brand can shake that off... maybe it's strong in other dimensions? ...or they're so manly they don't care what some may think?