When a Patent Office attempts to measure patent quality, they are measuring quality not quality (sic).
In other words what they think is a patent having “quality” is different from what say, a CEO of a commercial startup, would consider as a patent having “quality”.
To a patent office – at the front end – remote from commercial realities and also remote from Court/enforcement, the “quality” is all about whether the applicant has spent money on the invention. And whether the invention has some friends at the patent office.
Family size is just kaching globally (rub hands together); claim scope, claim number, IPC spread: these could be a measure how long it takes to get through the patent system but more likely they are quality indicators because they relate to the likelihood of spin out of divisionals ($$$).
And citations and radicalness (is that even a word) are just about how interconnected the invention is in the nepotistism of other patent examiners. Do we already have inventions in this area and can we just keep getting more? How many ($$$).
They didn’t forget anything. You have just revealed that it is an IP Statistic devoid of commercial application or reality.