My two cents:
If there's a fallback option, and if the user selects it, they
shouldn't end up in an unambiguous state. Right now we're seeing
systems hanging. I'd rather see a crash than a hang where the user
can't get to a shell, and sees no useful information on the screen
that tells them why they're hung up; or even generically that "by now
you should see a login screen and if you don't we've faceplanted
Maybe split the criterion:
Basic criterion: installation media must have a basic video boot entry
that uses the accepted fallback boot parameter(s), e.g. nomodeset. The
criterion just means the media must have the menu entry, and that it
passes something intentional for this purpose as a boot parameter.
Final criterion: installation media's basic video boot entry should
either work (we get a successful graphical boot), or it should
faceplant in some unambiguous way.
If it's not possible to ensure basic video either works as intended or
faceplants unambiguously; then I suggest dropping any beta or final
criterion. And also I wonder if it's at all useful to include some
kind of heads up description for the basic video boot entry? Like,
"this may not work at all" or "wait 5 minutes for graphical boot,
after 10 minutes assume it failed". Haha - I have no idea. Just
something so they aren't waiting around going WTF? Now what?