Defining a property as a parameter that needs explanation

Have a good week!
I wanted to ask about the third notebook. About a week ago I asked this question, but it was not understood at all, so I opened a new question with a more precise wording. I would be happy if the rabbi would answer.
The Rabbi presents in the notebook in the first chapter and later on the idea of ​​fine-tuning: a small deviation from the current constants of the laws and the universe could not produce life. In other words, most of the constants of the laws could not lead to complex formations.
But, complexity is not a single parameter/characteristic that can be thought of when talking about a unique characteristic of different universes.
Many other parameters can be considered besides the "composite product" characteristic.

1. For example – the biggest star
2. The hottest system
3. The furthest location among the stars
4. The largest (and yet most stable) chemical element
5. The smallest entropy and so on..
6. Moreover, each set of rules will result in a product with a unique characteristic for it – for example, set of rules X will result in a product whose position of the stars is precisely a point of the aforementioned set of rules… unlike all the others.

 
So, my question is, how do you choose a characteristic that is worth considering as one that needs explanation, from characteristics that are not worth considering? Or in other words, why is a characteristic of complexity preferable to a characteristic of the largest chemical element (for example).
 
Sorry for the trouble and I would appreciate an answer on the matter. This issue is a fundamental one with many implications for various and varied discussions, such as the debate about whether the Jewish people are indeed the most unique people [after all, almost every people has a different unique characteristic, although it is easier to identify a unique characteristic there, such as descent, etc.], and so on.