I don't think any of that is measurable. Any "division of the pie" will be controversial and unjust.
Examples:
1. Should 2nd and 3rd gen persons get more because they did not have a choice?
2. Sea Org staff were underpaid, true. But as a group, they also caused the most damage.
3. Everyone was "tricked" into forfeiture of a part of their lives and/or money. How do we decide who was more tricked?
4. It is a bit of a folly to assume that declared people who got disconnected from family members suffer more. I got declared, my mother disconnected with me. I'm perfectly happy with that - I would not willingly reconnect with her, even if she left CoS.
5. Do we pay more to those who blew first (and thus contributed least to the con)? Or do we pay more to the ones who suffered the longest? Wouldn't the latter end up with a paradox of: "Those who stayed until the bitter end and fought the hardest to support CoS get the most"?
6. Aside from the obvious DM case, where do we draw the line who is "top of the pyramid"? Some of the people near David are 2nd gen kids who had little choice and never knew a different life. I'm not saying what they do is justified, but I refuse to put all of them in one bag. Blame has to be seen on a case-by-case basis. We should avoid making "grey goo" even out of high ranking members.
7. Ok, assume we somehow draw the line and decide who are the bad guys at the "top of the pyramid". What about those who were at the top of the pyramid, but left? Rinder for example - he did a lot of dreadful things as ED, do we let him off the hook just because he blew?
8. OSA and ethics officers. Do we remove them from the pool entirely, or do we go on a case-by-case basis?
9. Do we treat differently those who gave donations as opposed to those who paid for courses?
10. How do we measure and value the tons of work everyone did. Obviously some jobs were more valuable than others, but some of the most specialized and valuable were also the most destructive for members.
11. Those who had recruitment success. Do we deduct money for each person he/she recruited?
I can go on...
To me, the questions are simply far too numerous and there won't be any good, obvious answers. No division will ever be fair.
Thus I think my idea of "everyone gets the same share" is at least unbiased, transparent and free of any sort of identity-group-gerrymandering.
I think I could agree that if we find high ranking members who are proven guilty of criminal offences, we can remove them from the pool. But that's the extent of unbiased "narrowing of the pool" that I can see.
