Actually I caught one counterpoint comment (a cross relation is a contrapuntal technique :P)... but that's not a problem (I'm obsessed with counterpoint, myself). I agree that comments on that should be made only in particular cases (like if there's a counter melody that obviously should be a separate voice, or something).
You'd probably notice that I'm more of a 7-8 reviewer myself (I rarely give a 10 unless it really is perfect), so I don't mind the lower scores. However, things such as instrumentation are pretty subjective opinions that you have, and unless there is some detailed reason as towhy you want woodwinds or something then it ends up sounding a little trite. For example...
If a composer wants to make something really epic, and only wants to use strings and a horn for it, then we would say "You could also use the woodwinds, the other brass-instruments and some sophisticated percussion to get a more epic sound." He/she is going to say "But that is my own style and I do not want to change it." "Then you won't achieve the maximum of what you were planning."
Understandably, this is a vague statement since there isn't actually an example, but I'll go with it since it's perfect for what I'm thinking of. An 'epic sound' is... vague, and the suggestion isn't too helpful since it is merely telling the composer to throw more instruments at the problem. Even if the composer follows, it might not actually help unless they know what to throw the instruments at.
If the track sounds open with just strings and a horn (which it probably would) then the comment should note that the soundscape isn't filling well enough (an objective statement), and that the use of [trumpets/trombones/specific woodwinds] would fill the space better, especially at [some time stamp that really exemplifies the problem]. Then the review has no way of being interpreted as being subjective - it's a real problem that you're giving possible solutions to, and it gives the composer some real room to move around (they might surprise you and solve the underlying issue in an unexpected way, which the reviewer might learn from).
Or perhaps there isn't enough variety with the textures and instruments and the listener gets easily tired of the song (again, an objective problem) - then suggesting to use different instruments to space the track appropriately would be helpful (again, the use of time stamps is great - even ifthey don't break them up at the suggested places they'll have a good idea to what you're hearing). Alternatively they could use the same instruments in different ways (horn covers a counterpoint while high strings take theme, or something like that). Again, the composer notices the objective problem with their track and they can act on it as they see fit, and again they might surprise you.
Your reviews have a lot of good things going for them (their organization is very nice, the mixing aspect is often spot on and some of the suggestions are interesting), but they seem less helpful than they should because they seem to focus on subjective factors rather than objective ones. I'm hoping that my... um, reviews of your reviews are helpful.