Unclear what you compare it with

here you write "… holds much more opportunity and likelihood for much better “fitness” ..." as if you would compare it with something but you do not. The sentence ends without opposing the FHIR based implementation to anything else. So the entire argumentation here basically boins down to: It is bettwer because we already take all sorts of things into account. So then it is not "better" as you are not comparing it to any other alternative.

Existing Wording:

This, in addition to the Extensibility and Community beneficial points listed below, holds much more opportunity and likelihood for much better “fitness” for semantic representation and ultimately valuable and actionable application of Quality Measurement and related CDS interventions and other CQI use cases such as Case Reporting and Knowledge Discovery.