What do you think Roman meant when talked about being over? What do you understand as being over? I think we are not seeing eye to eye because we have different answers to both of those questions.
Of course reaching a level of overness has to do with how your company treats you, those who overcome it are legit a handful. I'm not denying that at all. That doesn't mean a person is more over just because he got fukked by booking
You acting as if I said Punk was Dolph Ziggler or something
He mentioned bringing eyes to the product as a reason of being a worthwhile part timer so well go with that. He said he wasnt "as good or over as the Rock" Super true. I get that. Rock was a top guy during a boom period. Made part time possible. No argument there. Cena though, no. In Cena's era they were losing fans. It was slow and gradual but if Cena was really on the Rock level that wouldn't have happened.
Overness to me is about fan perception and longevity. Fans turned on Cena before WWE moved the goalposts with "the most polarizing WWE Superstar" schtick. Punk was never turned on. Sure Cena got an endless push and he was great for PR. Punk was not. But that doesnt make Punk less over, it makes him a moody a$$hole who cant deal with people long term.
If you are talking about who is the most suited to be a top guy in WWE then yes everything you said makes sense. But nothing you said backs up Roman's claim.
Low house show attendance or ratings isnt a measurement of overness with fans. Its interest in the overall product. The show isnt built off of one match. That kind of thinking is part of the reason WWE is in the shape its in now.
Company perception isnt a case of overness with fans. In fact it usually works against them.
Also lets not act like Dolph didnt get over multiple times.