On the so-called data:
The quality of the 'data' in the first chart is highly dubious. For example, the determinative every is listed as going with uncountable nouns. This, of course, is clearly wrong because every inherently considers a group as a number of individual things. Whilst it can occur with nouns that are often used with uncountable meanings, it can only be used with these when they are being used in their countable senses.
Secondly, it compares proportional terms with purely quantative ones. So for example, most tells us about a proportion not a quantity. Most might refer to three people out of five, but nobody would argue that three was many. Many on the other hand tells us about quantities but nothing about proportions.
The last point on the usefulness of the data presented by the OP here, notice that the data from the first diagram, which contains items like any, few, most and much, does not apply to the second diagram, which compares items like dozens, scores and hundreds. The two do not compare like for like terms.
Whereas the quantitative semantics of functional determiners is often fixed—so, for example, several must mean more than two, and most must mean more than 50%—the meanings of terms such as easy-on-the-eye or picturesque have no pre-determined or set multal degree of beauty involved. Whilst some might agree that gorgeous is probably more beautiful than pretty, whether one views hot as implying more beauty than luscious is definitely a subjective question. In addition, the number of terms to be considered has not been specified by the Original OP. The question, even had it had some intrinsic merit, is therefore unwieldy and inevitably invites list-like answers due to the number of items potentially up for consideration. Some possible contenders include but are by no means limited to:
alluring, appealing, blossoming, charming, cunning, delightful, engaging, fascinating, glamorous (also glamourous), prepossessing, elegant, exquisite, glorious, Junoesque, lovely, magnificent, resplendent, splendid, statuesque, sublime, superb, flawless, perfect, radiant, dainty, delicate, personable, pleasant, presentable, chocolate-box, pretty(ish), desirable, dishy, dollish, foxy, hot, luscious, nubile, pulchritudinous, seductive, sexy, toothsome, hunky, studly, arresting, eye-catching, flamboyant, flashy, glossy, showstopping, showy, slick, snazzy, splashy, striking, zingy, photogenic, telegenic (mostly snarfed and barfed from Webster's)
In short, had the OP set out a limited list off say, three, different adjectives or adjectival phrases to be ranked, this might have been an unobjectionable question, had the adjectives been clearly and unobjectionably different in terms of the degrees of beauty implied. However, this is not the case.