This feature rolled out here today, and is discussed here. This is interesting, but to some extent seems rigged against us - for example, the "Minerals" category includes chromium, fluoride, iodine and molybdenum - five elements which are by default not displayed in the nutritional reports, and for which little or no nutritional data is available. What's a good source of molybdenum? Should I be trying to chip off bits from my stainless steel pot? Likewise things like lycopene.
So, because the data is absent, the consumption reads as 0% for that category, and lowers our score there. This seems like a good way to get a nocebo effect going, which is particularly dangerous when dealing with something people tend to obsess over, like food.
Realistically, if you want to get this deep into the weeds with all this stuff, more data will be needed. As well, most of this stuff is going to completely overwhelm a newbie, so I would suggest some global setting of complexity, like,
Level 1 = calories and highlighted nutrients only - nothing else displayed
Level 2 = calories, highlighted nutrients and macronutrients (carbohydrates, fibre, fat, protein)
Level 3 = as above, plus vitamins and minerals
Level 4 = the whole hog