Look, this might work great .... for you! But that's kind of the problem, innit? Setting yourself up as arbiter as to what constitutes real harm, and what doesn't? I mean, this is some 1950s stuff. Or even earlier (shell shock can't be real! man up!).
We are having a debate about a potential tool and I think it is fair for me to give my opinion. Like I said before, if you want to use it fine. But I don't want to, and I have reasons for not wanting to use it I think other people might want to pay attention to. Again, I don't like talking about personal stuff like this, but I have had PTSD and I've dealt with mental illness in my family. While tools like this might seem like a good idea. I would argue they do have a down side. And that downside is they can be used as a weapon by people who exploit their own mental illness or trauma, in order to control the terms of conversation in a group. This is something I've seen first hand with mental illness, where their reality slowly becomes the reality of those around them. I think you always need to reserve the ability debate the merits of someone saying they have a problem with X being present. Maybe I am not doing a good job of conveying my opinion here. I don't know. But I can instantly see all the problems that might arise from a checklist like this, just from my own experiences with this stuff. So I don't think it is reactionary or dismissive. It comes from a place of understanding it isn't always a good idea to bend into these things.