This is not meant as any accusation of bias or contesting the results. Just thought I'd share 2 cents I had on things.
I'm curious how much recency played into some of these impressions. Some people might have evaluated based on how impactful the mon was for the time it was permitted in the tier (something that definitely weighs heavily in favor of Banned-by-Test subjects like Kyurem), but there's another part of my head that leaned a bit towards the influence of mons that were here by the time of the DLC2 meta, maybe leaning a bit more heavily towards long-runners like Clefable in turn.
Personal perspective, for a project about big influences and titans of "The OU Metagame" in particular, something in me wasn't inclined to vote for mons who got banned from OU, in part because the idea in that case seemed to suggest as significant as their influence was, it was not something we considered welcome/ideal for OU. Some might lean the other way and say they were Titans standing that far above other influences, which makes for an interesting discussion on what different voters were considering with their nominations and votes.
Also Melmetal was robbed