I’m a statistics nerd so I’m going to ask questions, lol.
But why did you decide to weight the U.S. News rankings at 50%? Particularly since U.S. News rankings are more about inputs and the selectivity of the student body than teaching and research. Faculty resources only make up 20% of the rankings, and the biggest percentage of this is represented by class size. Faculty salary is another 35%, which I think is absurd, since that has nothing to do with the quality of teaching but does benefit wealthy universities (who are also heavily benefited by a bunch of other areas, like alumni giving). Actually important factors that have the potential to affect the quality of education are only weighted at a total of 25% of the faculty resources category.
The AWRU raw score would actually be a much better indicator of research prowess, although those may not directly affect undergraduates. Although there are issues there too - some science fields are simply less likely to publish in Nature or Science; some strong universities may not have strong mathematics departments (which is what the Fields Medal is awarded for) or may not be strongly represented in the fields the Nobel Prize is awarded in, but still have strong research in other areas - things like that.
This list also, by necessity, leaves out small liberal arts colleges that could be really good places for undergraduates interested in research careers to go. The small classes and close working relationships with professors more closely mirror the graduate school experience, and LACs disproportionately send students onto PhD programs. At most elite LACs, the faculty come from the same top programs as research professors and still do research, with the extra commitment to teaching and training undergraduates.