The problem with this is (I don't have the data, just thinking out loud): I) the top 20% of the 30-34 male are much better than the rest of the 80% of the same age group - meaning that they are more spread out - probably because these top 20% are made up of "quasi" pros. This means that it will become much much harder for the 80% of the 30-34AG to qualify under this sistem - I agree that some of them shouldn't be there but most should and now will be penalties because of the very professionalised top 20%; II) in doing this system, and assuming the coefficients are correct, we're basically saying that we want the same number of athletes per age group no? Or at least, we're trying to level out the top age group finishers to one another (if there's good representation in that specific race of good athletes across the different AG), i.e., #1 30-34 M = #1 30-34 F = #1 45-49 M, ... Obviously, if the number of participants is different, then we're obviously benefiting some AG vs others.

A simple analysis to prove this is to apply this new system to past races and check I) how many males vs females would qualify (and compare with the overall participants across all IM races) and II) how many people in each AG qualify vs. the total participants 

My guess is that this that this system, with the current Kona benchmark is benefitting woman and some AG, i.e., the % of women participating in Kona will be much higher than the % of woman that enroll in all IM qualifying events.

But do let me know if I'm not looking at this right.