Not too bad. Even more galling than the Common Core'ers disregard for the overall critique is their rejection of smaller suggestions for improving the clarity and precision of specific standards, e.g.:
Section 1.A, Standards For Reading Informational and Literary Texts, Core Standards, #6
Current language: 6. Analyze the traits, motivations, and thoughts of individuals in fiction and nonfiction based on how they are described, what they say and do, and how they interact.
Proposed language: 6. Analyze the traits, motivations, and thoughts of individuals including the author, in narrative and expository texts, based on how they are described, what they say and do, and how they interact.
Rationale: The fiction/nonfiction distinction is problematic, since what is really meant here is text structure, not reference to reality. In many informational texts, the author is the only person available to analyze, and it is important for critical readers to do so, even (perhaps especially) in scientific texts.
Even that rewording is rather weak. You don't just analyze characters, personalities and authors based on the text itself, you need to make connections to prior knowledge outside the text to form interpretations.