Your personal bias has already been brought into the discussion. Trying to hide it behind a chart with a highly subjective grading system and categories doesn't really change that.I understand that everyone has different vies of what are key features of a game. I also would quibble with wikipedia's definitions, but it's a well-defined, well-read definition that seems at least roughly correct. For me I'd add in the things D&D doesn't have -- meta-currency being the big one. But I didn't want to bring inperonsal bias, so I went with an outside authority. If you want to look back in old threads and come up with your own "ten most emblematic features of D&D" that would be great -- I'm pretty sure I recall some such discussions maybe a decade back?
I don’t think that your framework of discussion is helpful. It misses the forest in favor of the trees. Overall, the Cypher System is most definitely inspired by D&D and the d20 system, and can easily be used to play D&D style games. Is it the d20 system? No. It’s something new. But the fingerprints of the d20 system, D&D, and its place in the Zeitgeist discussed above are kinda hard to ignore. So I think that it’s a little disingenuous to argue that Numenera isn’t a non-OGL Post-Apocayptic D&D with the serial numbers filed off.For your specific points, sure you can shift a point around here or there, but it won't make a lot of difference. It's pretty clear that at least based on wikipedia's definition of what is core about D&D mechanics, Numenéra is way less similar to D&D than BRP and SW are. And having played in a fantasy world SW campaign series, my experience strongly mirrors that result.
As I said before, Numenera plays a lot like an alternate version of D&D in the experience of both @Campbell and myself. (And I suspect the Alexandrian as well since he plays a lot of Cypher System too.) This does not somehow make Numenera bad. To its credit, much as Campbell says, Monte Cook designed a good system for helping the GM get the system out of the way for storytelling.
I think that arguing which game plays more like D&D - Savage Worlds or Numenera - is something of a red herring. If you want to talk about how Savage Worlds stems from its own surrounding d20 era Zeitgeist, then that would be a fun discussion with having. Because I do think that SW belongs to a similar family of games with 3e D&D and Pathfinder. SW definitely feels like it comes out of the '00 d20 era of games. But I would group Numenera as belonging to a later classification of games: i.e., d2010.
I am familiar with The Bridges We Burn, having run it myself, but that does little to change my play experience of Numenera as being a part of the d2010 era books. And when you also look at the adventure designs of Bruce Cordell, Sean K. Reynolds, and Shanna Germain, which all seem rooted in a D&D approach to adventuring, then that says a lot about the nature of the game. It's not a knock on Numenera to say that I don't think the Cook, Cordell, and Reynolds could not avoid D&Disms even if they tried. If the Cypher System was so incompatible in terms of play to D&D settings, then we would not be seeing Ptolus and Diamond Throne for the Cypher System or even playing Numenera with 5e. But we are, and that also says a lot to me about the compatibility of the styles of gaming between the two systems. Monte Cook's own sense of Numenera play in its adventures seems fairly rooted in and informed by D&D as well.I do however completely agree that the early Numenéra published adventures are pretty awful. Devil's Spine is about the only one I ran. The others I looked at and just said no. May I recommend The Bridges We Burn as an excellent 3rd party supplement instead? I've also had much more success using the worlds presented in the "Into the ..." series -- not adventures per se, but easy to create adventures from. Much better hooks and ideas than the original core books.