I did entertain the possibility of such a classification, however,imho the repeated statements of "Top 3" preclude such an explanation.
The the writer's conviction that there ought to be only 3 superpowers at most comes off quite strongly due to this repeated insistence. As its obvious from the table...there can be only 3 yes's for any given row of that table; due to this inherent limitation.
Then we have this strange situation of "top three military power with indigenous weapons". This bunches two different and distinct requirements together. The answer could be either Yes or No depending on which requirement one wants to look at. I assume the writer implied the top three military powers alone, because India has as many indigenous weapons (based on weapon types) as does China or Russia. Hell even the American SAW is Belgian in origin.
Furthermore we have some classic cases of moving the goalposts within the requirement list.
# Top 3 Sports Superpower
# Top 3 manned Space power
# Top 3 Per capita(I assume he meant capita by "capital) GDP power
^^ These were arbitrarily thrown in by the one who set this table up for good measure. The only things that actually matter are the GDP, the Military power(nuclear comes within this). Everything else is merely icing on the cake.
imho this table seems to have been drawn up to merely make a(faulty) point.
I am sure people will love it....