Interesting framework! The overall idea of helping to structure trade-offs feels like a powerful and necessary one.

To comment on the 6 trade offs you identify. I think the first four work well, but i would challenge the final two (at least in terms of thhe category names).

I don't think that "efficiency" and "effectiveness" are trade offs. Instead, i would argue that one (effectiveness) is a precondtion for the other (efficiency). In the work we do only public service reform, for example, you can't have an efficient public service without it first being effective. Money spent on providing an ineffective public service is wasted resoruce - and hence inefficient.

So i would argue that the lebal is wrong - but the description gets more to the heart of it. It feels like the "narrow focus" element is correct. But what we have fonud is that the attempt to pursue a narrow focus is intself inefficient (particularly when viewed from a systems thinknig perspective - i..e optimising the efficiency of a particular part of a system reduces the efficiency of the system as a whole).

I would also argue that one of the labels for the final diad are incorrect. "Equality" doesn't mean "the same for everyone" - think of the example of "equality of opportunity". (The poster with people standing on boxes outside of a fence has a lot to answer for in terms of misdefining 'equality'!)