it's simple:
100% with the AF specs
95% with the general body and UI and all
85% with the 2/3 stops better high ISO (if that is the actual number in the end, a full 2/3)
80% for stills options (it still needs EC in AutoISO M, NR is a bit gone wild for the jpg engine and sharpening algo not the best but in cam jpgs, not the biggest deal anyway, i bet the histogram is still not outline and you still won't be able to see where it ends when out in the sunshine, etc.)
40% for video options (come on at least give it zebra bars to show when stuff it blown! ML was a struggled hack and they put 30x more options in, although the 2 compression options are a plus at least)
40% with the MP count (hoped for 28-32MP, 36MP ain't bad either

and maybe they could have still gotten top video quality by grabbing it in the same 3x3 blocks just out of a bit of a cropped section)
0% with the zero improvement to low ISO DR (if this stands) :'(
0% with non-inbuilt flash
it's complicated:
100% with the fps IF it had had 28-30MP at 6fps but since it is still 22MP....
65% for 6fps at 'only' 22MP, the rumored 6.9 or 7.5 would have made it 100% at 22MP (if it had been 6fps and 22MP and come out a year or year and a half earlier also 100%)
it remains to be seen how much better the movie mode is, it seems like aliasing and moire are much better maybe give it a 90%? but sharpness and natural film look are in question and it could be 10% it could be 90%, not sure yet
The price seems a bit high considering it has a less advanced sensor than the D800 (by all accounts so far), no built-in flash or intervalometer and worse metering than the D800.
BUT
If the AF proves to blow away the D800 AF then it helps the price become more tolerable (although you might say it merely makes it equal for not having as good dynamic range and fewer MP) and if the video mode ends up doing a lot better than the D800, in addition, then the price also becomes a lot more reasonable.