> The updated IAU definition is essentially reverse engineered to fit how they wanted to classify the planets.

I wholeheartedly agree with this take. I have something of a personal hatred of poorly executed retconning thus I present the following proposal.

For the sake of simplicity we should use even powers of 10 with earth as the primary reference point. Note that the earth is 10^24, mars is 10^23, and the earth's moon is 10^22 (pluto is also 10^22 and less massive than the earth's moon). It seems "obvious" then that 23-25 are planets, 22 or less are relegated to dwarfs, and 26 and over are giants (jupiter is a 27 and the sun a 30 for reference).

By that logic, if we want to consider pluto a planet then the earth's moon also has to qualify. I don't really care one way or the other but that just doesn't seem sensible to me.