Are we arguing about minutiae again? I love arguing minutiae!
The real issues with the tiers is that we can draw the line anywhere. With enough statistical data we could make a list with 791 tiers; one for each commander.
So let's go back to defining the tiers.
1, Maximum Power: The best of the best, these decks are tried and tested, and are the most powerful ones.
1.5, competitive: these are also very strong decks that can go toe-to-toe with the higher decks, but have issues that are just stopping them from greatness.
2, High power: These decks are less consistent, but can still be very powerful decks. It is possible that in the future they will go up a tier.
3, Mid power: Casual decks are born here. Unfortunately, due to the nature of these commanders, they are not likely to leave this tier.
4, Casual: Or as I would prefer to call it, the garbage tier. These commanders just do not have abilities you can build a solid deck around, unless it is built around the colors, not the commander.
Pay attention to those last three categories. Both Reki and Kongming do not have the power to be in tier 2, but they are not so terrible that they deserve a spot in tier 4. Your argument is to make a whole new tier to divide tier 3 into two separate categories, which is just impractical, especially when the real focus of this list is the first three categories, not the last three.
If you want to take on this challenge, by all means, go ahead. But you can't put this much onus on someone else.
P.S. Can I see your lists for Kongming and Reki? I would like to compare them myself... after I finish with Vannifar.