This question was put on hold as unclear what it's asking:
@doppelgreener Says in comments that this seems to be asking for (or would lead to) a discussion rather than an answer.
Now, if the people who put it On Hold had also explained how to fix it, that'd be constructive, but they don't seem to see a way to fix it, which baffles me a bit.
If the wording "The question is, what changes would you suggest?" were edited to "Is there errata for this, or good house rules, or how can these inconsistencies be fixed or explained?", would this be acceptable?
It seems to me, that each of the specific points listed could be answered well with limited answers with concrete reasoning. There are only four questions with the Star Trek tag, and this is about one specific table in one game system. The question is about correcting the apparent inconsistencies, and not just a general call for alternate damage tables. So I don't see this resulting in a wild spew of opinion answers.
Putting this on hold prevents people answering it. It seems to me that while in theory questions of this type could lead to a variety of answers, that in this case, these are pretty limited and specific and would not have many divergent answers, especially if there is errata, or if anyone has ever played this game and was bothered by the same wonky table and fixed it.
It seems to me counter-productive to block answers on this.
It seems to me like a case of what Moderator Election question #3 discusses:
We have a problem here, occasionally, when a new user will ask a question that doesn't quite fit our format, and thus gets put on hold very quickly. This often leads to the new user feeling unfairly targeted and leaving the stack soon after.
It also seems like a waste of time for me and others.
Or should we suggest people go to other forums (e.g. forum.trek-rpg.net) instead? Or will links to specific other forums be edited out, so also be a waste of time, so we should just give up on using rpg.stackexchange unless we have a one-answer question?
This seems to me like a much more specific and limited question than many many questions which are left open on this site, about house rules, where various opinions are given.
For example, check out Do weapons damage themselves? about Pathfinder. This question has many answers which are about people's opinions about possible house rules for determining if weapons are broken or damaged during regular use. Isn't that about 1000 times more wide open than this one about specific fixes to one damage table? Then there are of course all the questions under the house rules tag. Why is this one seen as any more wide-open than those?