This and other recent posts (see 1/12/19, General Physical Preparedness) speak to the importance of definitions.

CrossFit is NOT the optimal intervention for advancing some "traditional" definitions of fitness. (Which the article itself notes in the intro) And so anybody who defines fitness as such will argue against CrossFit, and both feel and be correct in doing so within the framework they operate. To make any progress in the conversation, the core objective needs to be redefined - hopefully something that better tracks whatever INDIRECT objective we're all trying to achieve. (Here, I'd suppose high and durable functionality that is mostly context-independent)

We see the same thing in health contexts. If you define heart disease risk as, say a low total cholesterol level, certain interventions are and aren't going to be seen as effective, even if by other definitions of heart disease risk they would be optimal.

Very often, the most effective high-level intervention follows clearly and simply from that objective. Disputes over nearly any aspect of health, fitness, wellness, etc., seem to just as often follow from disagreements about what our precise objective ought to be as from how best to achieve it. 

I still remember the controversy this article caused when it first came out. A lot of people were clinging to the "fit for what?" definition of fitness. A powerlifter friend of mine desperately wanted to assert that he was fit by denying the existence of fitness as a separate quality from sport preparedness. The working definitions provided in the 2002 article: the 10 physical skills, the hopper model and the 3 energy systems were the most comprehensive definition of fitness I’d seen at the time.
As good as this 3-part definition was in 2002, Coach greatly improved it by defining fitness as "power output over broad time and modal domains". I think this ended the “fit for what?” debate. Under this definition, fitness is a distinct and measurable entity.
The health-wellness-fitness continuum also sparked some debate. The main counter argument was that you can be fit and apparently healthy on the outside, but die suddenly from a congenital heart defect. The example of an Olympic figure skater was brought up. Other than these ticking time bomb scenarios, I think it's a useful model for explaining the relationship between health and fitness.
Again, I think Coach improved upon the continuum model when he introduced the 3d model of health and fitness. With work and time (lower case t, signifying workout time) graphed on the X and Y axis, you get fitness as the area under the curve. Extend this curve along the z-axis to represent Time (upper case, signifying time over lifespan). The volume under the resulting curve is health. You've now defined both fitness and health in terms of power output.
Previously, fitness was measured using VO2 Max, lactate threshold, body composition, knee extensor strength and other correlates. Health was defined in terms of blood pressure, body comp, triglycerides, cholesterol and other correlates. It’s a big advancement to define both health and fitness in terms of power output.
CrossFit was way ahead of its time in 2002. It's inspiring to see that it's still evolving in 2019.

In the 2002 article, it states that a blood pressure of 105/55 is consistent with athletes. Also on the facebook page the numbers on a recently posted animation of the wellness continuum are 90/60. What are organized data sets/evidence support these numbers?

I am interested in what is being used to support this because I know that many will initially scoff at the idea that lower-than-normal blood pressure (120/80) can be non-pathological. In my field, whenever low blood pressure/hypotension is discussed it is considered an acute problem. My literature searches regarding blood pressure only seem to result in studies discussing the sickness side of the continuum.

Anecdotally I know this is true in principle, but I believe it would strengthen the idea of wellness as a continuum if the data to support it were published alongside the wellness continuum. (Maybe they have been?) Regarding blood pressure, it would help to clarify the difference between someone with fitness (low blood pressure a result of athleticism, diet) vs someone with disease (low blood pressure caused by hypertension meds, heart disease). Thank you in advance to anyone who can point this out to me.