This is just my opinion - do take it with a pinch of salt as I too am more of a coder than a pilot:
Point 1: I would certainly penalize anything under 50fpm as the pilot appears to be deliberately trying to achieve the lowest landing rate rather than landing on the touchdown zone with plenty of runway ahead.
Our flight tracker automatically rejects reports with landing rates above 700fpm and anything between -600fpm and -700fpm have to be manually approved. The remainder are automatically accepted at time of filing, assuming no other parameters are exceeded (pitch, bank etc.)
Plan 'B' for point 1: Penalize airlines that accept landing rates above 'xxx' fpm. (and actually reward airlines that reject reports appropriately...?)
Point 2: A difficult one as I am not aware of your current methods.
Point 3: Like you, I am a coder, not a pilot. But to add a little alcohol into the mix, a greased landing would have less of an effect on available runway length in a Cessna at a large airport. That being said, the Cessna has a greater chance of being blown into and shredding the wind sock! I think the -50fpm suggested limit above may cover it.
Point 4: Yes. Though you are possibly doing this already with the reports that are marked as 'manual'.
Point 5: Given the ever increasing number of freeware/payware aircraft, I guess you would need a database of aircraft types/names/derivatives to be able to achieve that. Rather you than me sir.
It would be interesting to add tail strikes and excessive bank/pitch etc (with the obligatory screaming passengers as I have done with our flight tracker) but I know all too well how much more work this would create for you and most every airline on VACentral!
Once again, let me reiterate that I am NOT a pilot and would gladly be shot down by anyone who wishes to add some cannon fire.
MaldAir.com / eo3va.com / EUSART.org / MAlitary.org