• There are a few other frameworks, new and historical. This is part of why no one will ever maintain a current webframework FAQ for Perl. It’s too much work and I daresay there is no single JAPH who has the breadth of expertise to do it easily.
• I don’t think Dancer(2) is considered unstable by anyone and Mojo would be debatable.
• Catalyst is fine for any size project if you know what you’re doing, it’s just a deep framework that is harder to learn.
• There is nothing wrong with CGI for tiny projects or expert users per se but it’s not worth learning if you don’t already know it. All Perl webframeworks RFC:SHOULD use PSGI as their interface layer. CGI can be used through PSGI.
• There are deeper concerns than façade and basic structure in frameworks; testing, support, community, longevity, bug density, extended documentation, adoption. I’ve seen few Dancer jobs. I see lots of Catalyst and Mojo jobs. Catalyst and Mojo are both easy to test; I have not enough experience with Dancer to comment on its testing.
• Deployment concerns are probably the biggest hurdle for devs. It’s the only reason PHP ate Perl’s lunch in the end. A deployment wiki/guide would be a bigger help than a framework page.
• Views and Models are not hardwired in (most) frameworks. Even comparing Catalyst against Catalyst could be a 9x9 grid with combinations of 5 or more view layers and 5 or more model layers.

I applaud anyone who attempts to do what you are suggesting. I warn those who ask, “Why the hecking heck isn’t there already such a guide?” that such a guide would have to be simplistic, and minimalistic, to be maintainable.