I just re-read Bill Hamilton's "Saints and Psychopaths" book and he makes it seem pretty straightforward, but does so in an interesting way.
Rather than saying what actions are in or out, he suggests it's the consistency of the teachings and actions that are most relevant. The teacher needs to follow their own teachings. So if the teacher says vegetarianism is required, but eats meat, then the teacher is suspect. If the teacher eats meat, but is silent on the issue, maybe a critique isn't relevant.
Did Alister want everyone to poop on the floor?

Then there are other things B.H. mentions like keeping promises, insisting that associates tell the truth, will look for their own mistakes and apologize and change upon seeing them. This is opposed to cover-up, deny, and only make apologies when cornered.
So a potentially falliable but consistent, responsible, and self-correcting teacher (that has something to teach!) could be a model.
Not a bad analysis!