Kaelik, you've clearly missed the point entirely. Which is too bad, because the point is written in rather clearly.
A) It's not about "is it possible, via this crazy combination of stuff, to break the game with this class?" All classes can be made to break the game with the right combos. If a DM wants to break the game in some way, he can. If he allows the players to do so and they want to, they can too. Candle of Invocation = done. That's not the point at all. The question is "as a DM, what classes are more likely to be an issue?" and "as a player, what classes should I be worried about?" The Sorcerer isn't Tier 2 because of one specific trick. It's Tier 2 because there are many possible ways for a player to use a Sorcerer to do things that the DM didn't want... even without actually trying to break the game. A great example would be one game I was playing in where it was set in the Underdark and intentionally low on magic items. We had plenty of money, but nothing worth buying. The DM had established a long time earlier that traveling caravans of magic item sellers would gate into major cities from the City of Brass (which was the magic item trade capital) and have a one to three day bazaar where they'd sell magic items (but only the ones they'd chosen to bring), then gate away. Also, the major plot line was that a shadow disease thing was spreading through the Underdark and converting or destroying all it touched. So the Sorcerer did the absolutely logical thing... she took Plane Shift as a spell known so as to go to the City of Brass and get whatever items we might need. This was a newbie player doing exactly what was perfectly logical... and it's game breaking, since it completely shifted the game away from what the DM wanted to run. Thus, it's a T2 class... it's a class where, as a DM, you have to watch it more carefully, and as a player you need to be ready to ask a DM "is this power going to be okay in your campaign?" If it was a T1 class it would be even worse... you'd have to check their spells each day to make sure it was going to be okay. For a T5-6 class, it's the opposite... the question as a player is "will this be able to play in your campaign" and for the DM is "what do I have to do to make sure that class is useful?"
Do you see the difference between that and a player going out of their way to get Arcane Disciple (I hope you've figured out why Eternal Wands won't work) for Magic Circle and another Arcane Disciple for Dimensional Anchor (a scroll of that might work, shame you don't have UMD...) so they can Planar Bind Efreetis for infinite wishes? That's a player going out of their way to break the game... it's not just built into the class, nor is it some painfully obvious thing.
B) Judging classes by which one's just better is little more than a penis waving contest. Who cares about how they play when they're not breaking anything? If it all works, it works, and everyone's happy. See, when people say "broken" what they mean is that the thing forced them to change their game because the game didn't work how it was supposed to due to that thing. A Fighter can be "broken" if the DM has to change their game to keep the Fighter able to do anything... I've had two DMs complain of that very thing, where they had to add in random fights where they made no sense just because the pure melee character would have nothing to do otherwise. Our group got to the point of leaving the melee back at the safe house while we ventured out with stealth and social classes into a hostile city because he was just a liability. That's breaking the game in the weak direction, because now the plotline the DM wanted to run can't be done (one player can't participate). And of course we're all familiar with breaking the game in the other direction... when the DM has to change everything because the caster has some power that just negates everything (such as the classic caster teleporting between continents to the destination city and thus skipping the entire pre planned naval voyage adventure). Lord of the Rings would have been a pretty lame book if Gandalf had cast Greater Teleport and just popped the whole party straight to the volcano (or if he'd just summoned giant eagles for them to ride...).
But if no adjustment needs to be made, if nothing's actually broken... who cares? Ranking classes by who's more powerful when everything's working just fine and the players are all happy is just a "mine's better than yours" thing. And that's not actually relevant to anything.
Now, if you want to write up a list of classes by difficulty to play, that would actually be useful. Some classes are really easy to make work effectively (most of the "you have a small list but you know all of it" casters, the ToB classes once you figure out what maneuvers they have, Binders, Druids, etc) while others take a lot of work to figure out (Artificers, Archivists, Factotums). There's an implied sense of that in the Tiers... if you think Wizards suck but they're ranked really high, it probably means it's just harder to play than you thought. But an explicit list would be handy.
C) You don't know how to use the system, which is why it's useless to you. But I've seen a number of groups (mine is just one of them) that will just say things like "okay, this is a T3-4 game, level 6, mid level optimization." Bam, instant balance. Now, "mid level optimization" isn't perfectly defined, but it helps, and knowing the classes you're shooting for helps. If you want to run that naval voyage adventure where the party has to deal with pirates on the high seas, you'd better keep the T1-2 classes out of it or they'll just teleport past... but it's fine to have level 12 T3-6 classes on that boat, and might make for a nice adventure. If on the other hand you want a really challenging campaign where monsters play really smart and use all their abilities and the challenges shift day by day, you probably should make sure the players are using T3 and up only, as a Fighter just won't keep up so well there. It's also useful if you're seeing balance issues in your party... if the Monk is clearly much stronger than the Warblade, as a DM do you house rule nerf the Monk? Or do you check and see that the Monk is a much weaker class, and thus consider that maybe it's the fact that you let the player be a Half Minotaur Monk that's the issue? Or do you maybe consider that the Warblade player may not know his class all that well and consider just helping him out? It's useful for deciding where the problem lies. It's also handy if you don't know the class too well... if a player says they'd like to play a Binder, is that going to be appropriate for a party that's got a Sorcerer, Beguiler, and Barbarian? Well, if you don't know the class you could check and see that it probably should be okay.
D) "if you presume equal optimization, the Dread Necromancer is better at every level of optimization. At no optimization at all, it gates in Efeerti, and wishes up infinite things and breaks the game. At every higher level of optimization, it still does that. The Dread Necro class has written in it "Instantly be more powerful than anything else ever." So equal optimization, as a concept, makes no sense." - I have no idea what the heck you're talking about here, since Dread Necromancers can't actually gate in Efreetis like that and actually get anything but a skeleton from them without pretty noticeable optimization and working at it. I think it's already been demonstrated that your item plan doesn't work, and you've made it clear you think this Efreeti wish plan is the strongest thing you can think of for DNs to do (it's the example you keep using), so I'd say spending the necessary two feats that are the strongest possible pretty much counts as "very high optimization." Really, if you're going for the strongest thing you can think of, then you should be comparing them to the highest level of optimization you can do for a Sorcerer... Sorc 5/Mage of the Arcane Order 10/Shadowcraft Mage 5, perhaps?
But again, if there's just one trick that a class can do and it requires a player going out of his way to break the game... that's not what I'm balancing based off of. Yes, it could happen, but now the player's really trying... and I already state in the system that with sufficient optimization you can go up a tier. Which is exactly what you're doing here... you're heavily optimizing the Dread Necromancer with the most powerful thing you can think of, and now he has one broken trick (Planar Binding based abuse). That's the definition of T2 (very low T2, because he can't even do it until level 12). He absolutely does not do this unless you really go for it.
JaronK