Thanks.
I'm going to reiterate, at an abstract level, many of the points that have been made.
I would caution you not to jump too quickly to the conclusion that detail is a problem. I think, in fact, the litigation over this shows that the absence of appropriate detail and specifications has been a problem.
Let me begin by saying, then, that a proactive scheme is universally regarded as required and as a feature that was deeply problematic with existing and proposed pay equity schemes. Second, the need to deal with issues of ambiguous terminology and the lack of guidance on methodology seem to have been of critical negative importance. There needs to be some detail about those. Finally, I would say the enforcement procedures are critical. It doesn't really matter what protections you have in place if there's inadequate enforcement.
Effective enforcement requires at least formal mechanisms and sites with individuals and offices responsible for that enforcement. It requires adequate funding for those assigned the enforcement task, and also for individuals, particularly those who are disempowered within the workplace, to proceed. Within that I would include funding for assistance, so that you're not simply leaving this up to individuals. The monitoring is a key expansion of the notion of enforcement.