To progress to Stage 2 the proposal needs to show that the solution space has been fully explored, and that's difficult because the proposal has not articulated (does not articulate) a generalized problem statement.
It is my feeling that any such generalized problem statement would make it clear that the Type Annotations proposal competes directly with other proposals for generalized parser augmentation including DMChurch's and mine, BABLR. My solution is under very active development and specifically innovates in permitting parser extension without requiring central blessing of new syntaxes by TC39.
I think central blessing of specific syntax extensions is improper in general because it creates an unlevel playing field which favors the incumbent technologies by forcing would-be new players to have a (clearly-reviled) build step unless they choose to look exactly like TS looks.
If you agree with the premise that blessing a particular syntax extension is wrong but that syntax extensions in general are a proven concept which deserve support (at runtime), then it starts to look like there was tremendous progress on achieving these much-voted-for goals in 2024. I would hope that the committee will see things in the same light and will consider these as three competing proposals in the same solution space so that it would be appropriate to consider all of them before one advances to Stage 2.