I was just thinking this - it's saying that how good the candidate is in a particular category counts for more (by a factor of r^2) than how important you have judged that category to be. To me this is the most interesting claim in the article, and it seems like if this were actually what the author was trying to say he would have at least mentioned the reasoning behind it.

Not that this is the biggest weakness with the method, since as others have pointed out the assignment of these weights is pretty arbitrary in the first place, but it makes me think this is just hand-waving all the way through.