Take a look at the PQIA naughty list, and see some of the stuff the offenders have claimed. Even some that haven't been targeted yet in that regard have made all kinds of claims, like A3/B4 and A5/B5 simultaneously, and so forth.
Now, of course, that doesn't mean you're getting a bad product in the bottle, but what are you really getting? When it comes to a modest application, and an inexpensive one, too, it's probably not a big deal. If my $100 mower blows up because I put some weird oil into it, I'm not out much. A lot of vehicles (notably Nissan and Infiniti, while we're at it) have historically had some pretty basic specifications, particularly in comparison to a diesel or some of the European manufacturers. So, in that case, it might be fine, too. But, it might not be.
The bottom line isn't solely what's on the sheet. Can you trust the oil company about what's on the sheet in the first place? Look at Castrol. I trust them, but they make some weird sheets, with lots of minimums and maximums, and wording like "pass." But, we know they make oil that meets the specifications they claim, and there are builder approvals, and so forth. So, I'd use it. Others claim mutually exclusive specifications, and that gives me the most pause.
When it comes to someone saying they meet dexos1 but didn't want to play the licensing fee, I can understand that. I can understand Red Line not being GF-5, because it's not realistic. But, if an oil company claims things that don't actually make sense, I worry and tend to go elsewhere.