This seems to be a fairly accurate assessment of the situation, imo.
It's disappointing to see people shocked by inclusion of binary components and left with a very negative impression. I've seen coreboot particularly derided by people who first learn about libreboot from the FSF and arrive with high expectations. Perhaps acknowledging the split and that right now x86 is a best effort in bad situation can help with this.
This both points out the platforms which are "fully free" and manages expectations upfront with other architectures. POWER systems that exist like the Talos II and any future openPOWER implementations are arguably far more "free" than anything on the RYF list (every thinkpad runs proprietary EC firmware, including the X220), and may be very appealing to those looking for a "maximum freedom" solution. The only other thing to do is be specific about what firmware modules are included in various other platforms and provide information needed to make an informed decision for a given threat model.
As Patrick Georgi noted:
FSP is a mixed bag in that it enabled going on with contemporary hardware but also seemed to have killed all motivation to reverse engineer chipset bringup - or maybe that's due to the omnipresent ME...
I think acknowledging the split may also generate interest in improving this situation. It's great if it prompts people to investigate proprietary components or pressure their vendors for better documentation.
A nitpick: Perhaps
As an Open Source project it provides a flexible framework for integration of necessary vendor-specific firmware modules, and...
As an Open Source project it provides a flexible framework for insertion of vendor specific firmware modules, and...
is more specific?
I not sure about naming. There was mention a while back of Oreboot, but not everything fully open source is also C-free.
Which one of the two would be coreboot-lite? :P