Just playing around with stuff. Would prefer a five dimensional arrangement, but collapsed many sound quality aspects down to two dimensions. I would say that I weigh resolution and microdynamics highest, but a combination of many other good qualities may trump the micro-stuff. Moving DAC thread from HF to here.
What you have in the info-graphic works okay.
A "depth" dimension may add other models that share all the other audio metrics (dimensions).
You may also try a variety of a "polar" graph. Here's one a UK audio mag used, decades ago, to present qualitative (subjective) info:

BTW:
I'm from LA and know about the river ... but I have NO IDEA what the red-shaded remark (about global warming) means -- it's not just colloquial, or regional, it's plain confusing. If RED indicates some sort of unsavory sound characteristic, a more prosaic comment is needed (e.g., sounds "dry").