There are some good comments on the independence post, to which I have written some (lengthy) replies.
But here are a few more thoughts, from offline comments and talking with my friend:
How much independence?
Insistence on relentless independence can be throwing out the good science baby with the mentor-dominated bathwater, to coin a metaphor. It's very easy to dismiss one's mentors, or better yet, Julia's mentors, as out of touch, or not understanding, or if they are close in age, just Not Quite As Good as oneself. There is value for working with other people. The difficult judgment is determining if the TT candidate faculty is driving the research, or functioning as an executive officer. What is the scientific/creative relationship? Publishing by oneself is clear.
How explicit the criteria?
I perceive this as problematic, to say the least. In my view, the more explicit the criteria are, the more difficult it becomes to look at good people who might not quite make it. If it's a blue-yellow axis when does blue become green, and is green ok for blue and when does green become yellow? Yes, some things do need lines. By using a word like "independence" or "excellence", with some guidelines, it leaves room for the multiple levels of assessment to allow for different kinds of achievement. It also leaves room for abuse. But the answer to the abuse is not more specific and explicit criteria, but for more reasoned, rational and defensible assessment.
One more reason for not having explicit criteria
Making a form with boxes encourages box ticking behavior.