There’s so much wrong with this, I hardly know where to begin:
So, every team that doesn’t win a state championship is a failure? That’s beyond absurd.
The reason the success factor was adopted was to promote the goal of class football - as far as practicality will allow, like teams should play like teams. The success factor is a crude tool for identifying programs that consistently punch above their weight class, and regrouping them with teams that are (presumably) more on their level. It does not, nor should it, require a team to win a state championship if they prove consistently that they can compete at a higher level. And they prove it by being disproportionately successful in their class. You can quibble with the point levels or the length of the points cycle if you want. But that says nothing about the validity of the basic concept.
At bottom, your point seems to be that until a team demonstrates total domination of a class by winning a state championship, they shouldn’t be moved out of their class. You only have to look at Adams Central’s recent history to show how wrong that thinking is. They went to the state finals in 1A 3 straight years, losing every time, but accumulating enough points to bump up to 2A. To your way of thinking, they should have stayed in 1A. But they didn’t, and promptly won the 2A championship the next season (last year), and made it to the 2A semistate this year, losing to the eventual state champ. But to your way of thinking, it was unfair to move them up since they had “unfinished business” in 1A.
If you are a program that enjoys disproportionate success in your class throughout the points cycle - however long it is - you should move up. But the idea that you can only be considered such by winning the state championship makes about as much sense as screen doors on a submarine.