Honestly, I don't think the 'selections' should be any more specific. The CH should clarify, be more specific, and be initiated to engage -- at least in some cases. The comment boxes exist for that. I think the reason for rating is just becoming a bit of a crutch. I like that we are at least getting some idea now of why we are being rated the way we are, but I don't think it should replace engagement, instead I think they should work hand in hand because right now it's not providing more direction -- more it serves most of the time as a way to stump (almost as if when we get some of these NTYs and get some of these reasons it's almost like we're being told NTY, No More just because it lacks substance to help give us direction). Yes, it's better than what it was, but there are some cases, like what you're describing, @lightless, that I think a comment should be supplemented. We're not allowed to ask about ratings from the CH so I think some of these 'reasons' need to be reasons for engagement and not ONLY a reason for rating. But, that's just my opinion. I understand that CHs get overwhelmed and that this helps with that and it helps us that it provides at least some feedback (more than we were getting in some cases) but I think some things are just better as comments and personal engagement than just a one-size fits all generic comment. Again, just my opinion. Not trying to be overly critical or even harsh, so if it seems that way I apologize. I just like, in some cases, having actual feedback instead of just a served by selection approach because SOMEtimes it squashes the creativity or brings it to a halt with lack of further explanation.
Edit: I think I should clarify in this circumstance. For example the case in point that lightless speaks of -- if there is a competitor conflict it would be helpful that (in some industries) that the CH tell us what this competitor is so that we can avoid similar words. Or if there is a TM conflict, describing it because just implying a TM conflict does not mean it has anything to do with the precise name we are using or the name of a competitor because USPTO has some very stange rules sometimes (ie a name cannot differ by only a couple letters, a name cannot always imply a similar meaning EX. two different words for a similar product that share the same inspirational meaning can be a TM conflict, etc) These are examples where either comments to a single creative or all creatives in a contest (in message area) should possibly be given and not just a generic NTY without specification.