Mare has has shown me there is a fine line between "processing" (#62, #85), and "grinding something up" (#78). I still think this line of thought is really on to something, but it adds yet another thing to think about.
#80 get's a high rank because of it's simplity, and use of two-color 3D (e.g. #40), but would still need to figure out how to integrate "digital/data-processing" to push it ahead.
#76 & #80 point out there is some useful things that can be done on the inside of a gear, but have to be judicious to keep it from getting too busy.
#83 gets high simplicity points, and general likeability. I am thinking about a horizontal flip (so it points to the name), and adding some minimalist drawing to evoke a geared "and" gate (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:And.svg), which may help squeeze in the data-processing angle without the complexity of "data bits"
This has worked out even better than I had expected. It has really helped me refine what it is I'm looking for, and the submissions have all been great. I don't know how it feels from the designer perspective, but for the CH, it's extremely efficient and productive. So, in summary, It looks like the the high-ranking design features are, in order, (again, despite what I naively said before):
1) Gears/mechanization
2) Information/data processing ("and" gate? "data bits"? (but watch out for "information grinding"))
3) two-color 3D (if used)
4) overall simplicity, partly because of:
4a) usability [of some part of the logo] as favicon
4b) usability in monochrome (*new)
5) bonus: integrating aviation theme (most have been using propeller, but wings, airy curves are good too). It's more to serve as an inside secret than really useful, so it's not worth added complexity.