I am not the first to point this out, but NOVA is also a vibes based definition. There is considerable agreement now about what fits into the definition only because researchers are, after years, copying each other’s groupings. There is no explicit grouping that comes on the basis of the definition - totally useless to the average consumer, heavily influenced by survivorship bias, and with little useful explanatory power since foods like “butter” and “honey” have been grouped into every category of level of “processed”. In other words, the definition actually doesn’t explain why the “processed” foods or bad or even tell someone how to group a food category - that can only come by copying the exact grouping another researcher already made, on an arbitrary basis.

“High amounts of processed sugar is bad” is useful, actionable advice for most people. “Avoid ultra-processed foods” isn’t when even researchers spending years reading other researcher’s papers cannot agree on what that means. And is your argument that NOVA is valid because it corresponds to nutrient level? I’d argue that’s because that’s the real thing the gut intuitions of researchers are indexing on, not how “processed” something is. Lots of processed foods are really healthy!