Done well these ladders can provide a somewhat objective backbone to justifying performance reviews and promotions across a large org. That said, ladders are generalizations by definition and cannot tell the story of an individual. It gets even more complex when you realize that the highest functioning teams will have differing and complementary personality traits and approaches.
While everyone wants objectivity and fairness, the functioning of a creative team exploring new problem spaces is squishy, and relative contribution is subjective. Attempting to force objectivity through rigid adherence to a fine-grained rubric is dehumanizing and will likely lead to box-ticking behavior and losing sight of the actual business goals. What you want is an engaged manager who is tuned into the team, hearing all the feedback, and able to synthesize that into a fair performance evaluation. If you don't have that level of trust with your manager then no amount of documentation and formality around the process will save you.
While everyone wants objectivity and fairness, the functioning of a creative team exploring new problem spaces is squishy, and relative contribution is subjective. Attempting to force objectivity through rigid adherence to a fine-grained rubric is dehumanizing and will likely lead to box-ticking behavior and losing sight of the actual business goals. What you want is an engaged manager who is tuned into the team, hearing all the feedback, and able to synthesize that into a fair performance evaluation. If you don't have that level of trust with your manager then no amount of documentation and formality around the process will save you.