I think this should be adopted. If people use it, that'd be great.
But: I hate that "e2e" means not actually end-to-end. "e2e" etc are terms of art with specific meanings, we shouldn't be altering them. There's also complex cases, like escrow-based cryptography, which aren't captured here (but do exist and are deployed). Whether something's decrypted (or re-encrypted) in transmit, or stored in unencrypted form (including "encryption at rest", which is usually a box ticking exercise) makes a huge difference in legal terms, though less in security. But e2ee has the specific meaning of being encrypted from its originator to its final destination, and that's something we shouldn't change here.
Otherwise, looks good - I might propose changing a few things from booleans to URLs (like data export), and anyone with PITR is going to hate that "0" means no backups. (That's Point In Time Recovery, not Pain In The ... whatever.
Dave.
[ The missing close parenthesis is purely to pay Goffi back for having mismatched brackets around SNIP ]