Thanks @EthereumTGU (and I guess the rest of the Operations Committee) for putting this together. 
I really appreciate the effort to make the tiering system simple and transparent. I agree with @Sov that starting with something this clean and verifiable makes sense, and I can see how using rationales as a signal for added effort is a solid proxy in absence of more complex evaluation.
That said, I’d like to offer one reflection: as already stated, not all rationales are equal in terms of contribution quality, and sometimes not writing one may actually reflect thoughtful restraint.
For example, in my case, I voted in all proposals… but I didn’t post rationales for two: one was a technical upgrade outside my domain (Galileo), and the other (Auto-Abstain extension) had been thoroughly discussed and had no real contention.
Meanwhile, for the Governance Framework Update proposal, I participated in deep design work: shared frameworks, hosted calls, posted threads, opened community polls, and helped shape the conversation in different meetings.
Under the current system, all of that gets less weight than someone who simply pasted a few-words rationale in each vote.
I’m not suggesting we introduce subjective assessments of rationale “quality". Again, I agree that’s a rabbit hole. But maybe we could add a complementary signal that reflects broader contribution… like a basic forum activity score (e.g. likes received across posts during a vote cycle) or the number of comments a delegate made in proposal threads.
Even a simple multiplier (e.g. +10% for crossing a threshold) could add nuance to the tiering without complicating the core logic.
This isn’t about perfect fairness… just a reminder that governance contributions often extend beyond the vote interface. 
Participation gives us legitimacy, but reasoned deliberation from a high context is what elevates the quality of our decisions. A small nudge in that direction could go a long way. 