Your question's more like a starting point for philosophical, linguistic, and other research. No kidding.
You're right about the 'thinginess'. Anyway, humans just do what they can and try some more with language.
Let's start with an issue you may find interesting, I hope: nominalizations in English and many other languages most often allow to leave out the agent, patient, and other participants:
Killing, a sell or a visit doesn't say who, whom, when, where.
That's one reason why excessive nominalization can be used in malicious ways. ('Nominalstil', if you want to adopt a German term)
It's hard to say in general when useful flexible constructions get misleading. Mostly because verbs are so complicated, allowing for many different roles expressed by noun phrases, prepositions, dependent clauses and some more.
Sorry for my alluding overgeneral formulations. There's no short answer to your question for all I know about linguistics. Perhaps I read and heard too much on those issues.
By the way, verbalizations (to hammer, (to mouse as a cat or on a computer) are a totally different beast: the noun names a class of referents which nearly always fulfills a single role. The fun is you can't say which role just by looking at the noun.
If you delete the most of all and rewrite it as a bulletted list, the problem becomes clear:
We hope you will find our Qualifications to be:
- well-organized
- concise
- to exceed your expectations
Your sentence treats well-organized, concise and to exceed your expectations as being in the same grammatical category. well-organized and concise are adjectives, but to exceed your expectations is an infinitive. to be to exceed your expectations is just wrong.
It was harder to spot before, because the most of all confused matters.
Also, qualifications should probably not be capitalized (although that depends on context).
Best Answer
In most European languages,
Article + Adjectiveconstructions can have specific reference; the German nickname for Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, for instance, was Der Alte, which translated literally as 'The Old One'.While English speakers can and do often delete nouns and pronouns, in context:
generally in English, constructions like that can only have Generic reference, not Specific:
So, the coarse, the subtle, the ridiculous, the sublime, the stupid, the uneducated, all are fine, provided that they don't refer to individual contextually specific things or people, but rather generically, to all such things, without individuation.
What's interesting is whether they have to refer to classes of people, or of things. That's a matter of interpretation, and varies a lot with the adjective and the context.