Yes, the fact that that is the way it was done in Chalmer's and other primitive surveys is precisely the problem, and why we created Canonizer.com in the first place. Many experts want to join multiple camps (I would want to do this in this case, like Mike), and want to provide much more specific definitions of what they mean, and so on, when they did or didn't select a particular answer from any limited set. Primitive surveys like that are completely worthless. Everyone just argues over what experts really meant when they did or didn't check any of the check boxes, so you can't use it to convince anyone of anything, or to show any kind of consensus of any value, since anyone can believe anything they want about what any experts meant when they did or didn't check any particular box. I've experienced this with people many times.
And, yes, I was hoping that moving this illusion doctrine into the compatible camp would include being more specific about definitions. For example, it must be explicit that the kind of free will already defined in the camp (getting that which is better) is not an illusion.
I was hoping to also specify a different kind of free will than that, something like it 'seems' like some unitary "we" has all the power over the choice, and that there is no deterministic or programmed causes and effects, in some kind of indefinable and mysteriously culpable way. I think everyone in the compatible camp would agree with such, if the definitions were concisely specified in the right way.
Also, I see evidence of you and most other people of thinking of Canonizer.com like a traditional survey in this and other ways, in other topics. This is completely the wrong way to think about it. Everyone should be working, as much as possible, to have the fewest possible camps.
The goal of everyone, should be to have just one, easy for everyone to read, if not a single supper camp, that includes all doctrines agreed on by everyone, then having it all in the 'agreement statement' at the root. Any time there are differences of opinion such that it requires multiple camps, it should be specified exactly what would be required, or why anyone cannot be a part of competing camps, including lack of experimental evidence, or whatever. This to explain to experimentalists, what will be required, to win over everyone else, and so on. Primitive surveys are static, where Canonizer.com is meant to constantly improve, and increase the amount of consensus, especially about any natural sciences, or predictions about such.
In many places, people have created way to many lonely camps, containing doctrines that many, if not most of the people in existing camps, would completely agree with. It is far better to assume you can improve an existing camp with more consensus, even if it appears to be significantly different, to be what you want it to be. There is a good chance that someone just started an existing camp, quickly, off the top of their head, and that they really wanted it to be like what you'd also like it to be. Only fork or create a new camp when it finally becomes clear that there is no way to achieve all "the improvements", you'd like to see.
When I've talked like this before, you've pointed out that diversity of opinion isn't a bad thing. And I completely agree. In many still theoretical things, diversity of opinion is a good thing. We desperately need to have real motivated people to cover all possible bases, and to know who these people are. But, after this top priority, we should find as much, easy fore everyone to read, consensus, as possible.