The author was saying that, in their personal playing skill-limited estimation, the model made a stronger pick than the human drafter did. They propose that individuals overrate and underrate cards, but the model collects that and appropriate rates them. But it could also just be that the author is overrating cards - that’s why they asked for other opinions.
Yes, but that's an arbitrary and subjective qualification. It's eyballing - useful as a tool to evaluate your model during development, maybe, but not what you report when you claim the finished model is "better than humans".
