What happened to the old principle of KISS-"Keep It Simple, Stupid"-? Over the years, the Jepp charts have become more and more cluttered, with "information duplication overload", unlike earlier charts which were much clearer, just like (dare I say it), Aerad. These days, it's hard to see the wood from the trees.
3.0% versus 2.8% missed approach climb gradient minima on those Ibiza charts? Who cares! How often are you landing at such a weight that this would have any significance? I am sure most of todays commercial jets would have no problem achieving these figures, except maybe after losing an engine on a heavywt/hot/high or terrain challenged departure and returning to land. But if the performance calcs (2.4%) allowed you to get airborne and climb out in that condition, the landing should be no problem where G/A is concerned, (unless you lose more donks, in which case it's not your day; bugging the appropriate Cat 1 minima could then be academic-280' instead of 249' on the baro?!. I'd be looking for somewhere else to go if conditions were that bad.)
If the relevant authorities are that concerned, then please publish gradients etc (and many do this) in 10-1P amongst all the other legal junk that we plough through at our leisure during cruise. Just like Notams, the important items are often buried away amongst all the out-of date stuff. Thank God for the sharp F/O's who are usually pretty good at sorting out the wheat from the chaff.
These days, too many of these procedures seem to be written by lawyers, not pilots. If you have the time or the inclination, have a look at the missed approach procedure for Runway 25R at Hong Kong; I call it-"The Go-Around from Hell". Does anyone actually attempt to fly it when the chips are down?!