The latter two of these points seem pretty subjective. I feel like they're written in a way that anyone could easily make an argument for or against Rust having

The latter two of these points seem pretty subjective. I feel like they're written in a way that anyone could easily make an argument for or against Rust having fulfilled them today or literally at any point in the future. There's not really any way to refute an argument that something is "changing too fast", "not boring enough", or "hasn't demonstrated it can do the kind of work C does". I'd find them more compelling if they were expressed in a way it was actually possible to verify whether Rust reaches them or not at some arbitrary point in the future. Otherwise, people will inevitably just see them as a reflection of their existing opinion on whether it's wise or foolish for SQLite to use C rather than Rust.