I'm with ya, Ellen. Another possible way to approach it might be unpalatable to some, but that would be to dispense with the "degrees from" calculation and, since they're computed anyway, use the theoretical sharing percentages.
Realistically, I think that could be 1.5625% vertically up the tree, which would extend to 4g-grandparents. That may be a step farther than someone could pragmatically assemble DNA evidence among living descendants, but it isn't out of the question as is 6g-grandparents.
For the lateral reach--across the tree to contemporary cousins--I'd set the bar at 0.1953%, 4th cousins...75% less than the 0.7813% of 3rd cousins.
I believe the original intent was to provide clues for potential research. Going out to 6g-grandparents doesn't really do that and gives a false impression about biological relatedness and usefulness of the information.
Conversely, limiting the lateral breadth to 3rd cousins is handy because that means the WikiTree policy of simple, two-tester "confirmed with DNA" can be applied. But finding DNA matches to 4th cousins is not unrealistic. The assumptions applied to the seminal Brenna Henn, et al., 2012 research paper arrived at an estimated average of 190 3rd cousins and 940 4th cousins: we should have almost 5 times the number of 4th cousins as we do 3rd cousins.
Limiting the vertical threshold to 4g-grandparents and the horizontal to 4th cousins is not only easier to explain and remember (4 up and 4 across), but it's actually feasible from the research-clue standpoint and has the potential to significantly increase the number of profiles carrying information in the "DNA Connections" panel.
Of note would be that the 0.1953% for 4th cousins would extend to relationships like 3C2R, 2C4R, even 1C6R. But that's okay because the biology doesn't care about when the MRCA lived, only the number of birth events separating the cousins.