not sure if it is clear what you mean. Can you pls. give an idea, how you would formulate the poll QAs?
I would suggest to add another criterium concerning the quality of the content towards poor scoring. Indeed, it might be "acceptable" for a broad audience but it is far from being exceptional for someone who wants to know more.
Under clarity, I guess you mean that the website in question presents a good overview of concerned information. In my view, I would understand it as well as a performance of transparency for all people who want to know more to easily get access to more background information. To sum it up, I would question if "the quality of the contents is valued" through a presupposed clarity of the website in question. In other words, I can not separate the form of the contents from what lies under, that is, one does not achieve a big deal by only displaying informations, be it in a nice way or not. For me to express a clarity level of such a website would necessarily include the relevancy of information regarding the targeted audience
I hope I am myself clear enough
P.S.: trying to explain what I meant helped me think that I would vote for "very poor" or "chaotic" in that case, taking into account the related relevancy of contents.
N.B.: To the criterias, I would add a "don't know" option. Sure, one can argue that if you don't know europa.eu, you have little chance of succeeding in an EPSO competition (because of the main and basic informations the site offers). However, if you are deeply interested in EU affairs, you should spend time on other websites (e.g., while preparing an oral examination), and that's why you may not know what's going on on the website...