Cerin--
That looks like a streamlined version to me.
Estel/Cerin--
I think the important thing is getting any objections raised, in any model we use, to the applicant. I think having names attached to them when they get there is much less important. If people are capable and willing to tell someone why they object, let them do so on their own time (and some will, bless their hearts) but don't require it, because it might make VALID objections harder to coax out of people.
I would say "a total of four" instead of "three other" as it is quite possible that several people will respond quickly to an applicant's name showing up.
Those are my suggestions...these are my observations:
The dual threshold serves a valid purpose: it recognizes that some people are capable of pinning down a specific event that makes them not trust a person, while others may not be...or may not be willing to share it for their own reasons, good or bad. Instead of judging those reasons, we just require they be more widespread.
Personally I would prefer 8 independent objections be the trigger for the first threshold AND the threshold itself: if 8 people, on their own, come forward with reasons they don't trust someone, that's enough. If they don't, the 1/3 kicks in. A bit simpler that way.