Thanks, those criteria all look good to me. I’m circumspect regarding #7 as I feel that while restricting the number of broad-focus journals helps to prevent dilution of quality, it could equally be argued that it artificially restricts the volume of papers on a deserving topic, and also tends to suppress competition between journals. (This touches on difficult-to-answer questions like “How many journals for topic X/subtopic X.Y.Z *should* there be?”.)
I was not previously aware of OASPA, Portico or LOCKSS. With some quick searches I was able to verify that BMC and OUP were members of all 3 as expected, while PLOS was a member of OASPA and LOCKSS. Avestia was, as expected, not a member of any.
Could I suggest putting the information in your post in an article in its own right? I think many would find it interesting. Also I would certainly be interested in reading a longer article on the topic of how to tell which new publishers actually are (or might be) good, if you felt so inclined.