This reminds me of biblical/new testament studies wherein most scholars posit the existence of "Q" (from the German "quelle" or "sayings"), a hypothetical early text and/or oral tradition that the (later) writers of the synoptics (i.e. Mark, Matthew, and Luke, in that order) drew upon and combined in sometimes different ways.
The "Q" hypothesis helps scholars explain the numerous textual similarities not evidently based on/rooted in a later gospel writer simply using an earlier one as a key source. Indeed, some would even suggest several redactions/layers in the "Q" tradition itself, prior to the sayings having been codified and put to paper, as a means of explaining the minute textual differences within passages/materials that all the synpotics have in common.
Similarly, here we have our resident renegade scholar positing a hypothetical list/ranking ("K9", from the English "Klein Nine") that would help explain the similarities in taste amongst a large percentage of gca.com posters better than would the reverse hypothesis, i.e. that the consensus gca.com opinion in these matters has 'worked backwards' to inform our scholar's very hypothesis and positing of "K9" and its contents.
So, a question: for those who have played all 10 of the (supposed) "K9", how valid do you think this hypothetical list/ranking, and where would you agree/disagree with it?
Thanks
Peter