Overall I like your list, probably because I think we have similar approaches to the game: the idea that a strong military to simply take what you want, when you want, is often undervalued against turtle small empire type of play.
I, of course, have some slightly different opinions on the placement of a few of the Civs, but pretty minor. Except for two. America and Greece as Tier 2???! Maybe I can get behind some arguments for them and consider them as Tier 3, maybe, but Tier 2 is too much IMO.
Greece: Being artificially boosted by that gimmick 8 rating. It is true Deity AI Alexanders do well. It is also true Siam, and any other AI who focuses on city-states do well. i.e., city-state alliances are good, but this is apart from Greece's UA. The difficulty has never been holding on to city-states, it is getting the initial alliance. Greece gets a
minor boost to finishing city-state quests to help bridge the gap between the lucky free alliance and getting the gold/spy to maintain it, but that is not worth an 8. Too situational, and any other Civ under those same favorable conditions would do nearly as well.
I would rate Sweden's ability to drop the spare GG for the quick CS alliance to be at least as good (you rated it that way as well), if not better, and even in that scenario I think a rating of 8 is too generous. (On a side note, I find the rating of Caroleans to be surprisingly low. Generally it is easier to add more melee to your armies the later the game goes on, and being able to pick up double cover with march right out of the gates seems like it deserves higher than a 1)
If the 8 were dropped down to a reasonable level, Greece's overall rating would plummet and they'd be no where near Tier 2.
America: I've argued for them often enough (as they are usually towards the bottom of many tier lists), but at some point they just stop measuring up against some of the more powerful Civs. No argument on tile purchases (I purchase a lot of tiles myself, especially with hyper aggressive settling and stealing resources which should have been for another city/CS). The rating on the rest seems a
tad too high.
+1 sight is decent, but it has limits. I get the impression you are only rating it this high to try and get it over Shoshone, which is often regarded as "America but better". So you may get a few extra gold (30 instead of 15 for CS discovery) and an extra ruin or two (of which one will likely be something like barb camp location), shave a few turns off of uncovering the map, but is all this worth a 3? Ehh... I personally don't think so.
Minutemen as well seem to be rated rather high for what they are. I don't value the +1 drill all that highly, nor do I think the GA points are that useful on the long-term. I do agree the movement bonuses can be good overall. Still, all this rates as a 3? I could agree on a 2.
B17... meh. Yes, I know about the instant air repair promo if you have enough XP buildings, but bomber stacks are bomber stacks. The neutral version is powerful as is, a minor increase isn't a game changer. It would be similar to a UU battleship getting +1 range... okay great, but a regular battleship still rolls over everything with ease, the +1 isn't dramatically changing their effect on the game.
And of course this is ignoring that your great war bombers will already be stacking promos for air repair, and if the game reaches full out bomber warfare, you are most likely in a winning position anyway. A 1/5, no different than your ratings on Cossacks, Panzer, and anything else with simply a minor, insignificant stat increase.
So 7.5/10. Right behind Shoshone, exactly where they should be
Especially for when extra mobility is concerned (minuteman, woodsman, incan hill , ski infantry , Kilimanjaro, Darius) or life leech (Janissary &jaguar) .. Even on the most vanilla version can move out of position to finish foe on flat land and come back to safety out of range of most retaliation .. 
