Pythagoras and Plato sought to combine moral and mathematical elements of reality in their work on ontology. This was very influential and the work of both is still consulted to this day, although, the social and political implications of their methods are often rejected by more modern philosophers.

Pythagoras isn't really consulted in this regard except by those doing work in Ancient History of Philosophy. Also, I don't really know what the first sentence means. Honestly, in some of these cases maybe arguments could be made in favor of the writer's assertions but a lot of these claims are so unclear and unusual that anyone new to these issues would come away with wrong ideas.

Some consider the debate to continue to this day in economics, with the neoclassical economics based firmly on Aristotle's methods via Friedrich Hayek and Karl Popper,

"Methods of Aristotle" goes undefined throughout. This really could mean nearly anything. But whatever the interpretation I know of no insightful way to distinguish neoclassical economics from Islamic or feminist economic by referencing Aristotle.

Islamic economics and feminist economics which reject some aspects of Aristotle's logic, e.g. law of excluded middle, and seek to build on some intuitive and morally defensible ontology, as Plato did.

Wtf? I'm not an expert in Islamic or Feminist economics but... they reject the law of the excluded middle? They deny that all propositions are either true or not true? Maybe there is a keen insight here, if so someone explain it to me. I reads like a non-sequitur.

Buddhism also stresses notions of right livelihood which seem to be possible to measure and compare in a quasi-formal manner.

They're not.

The Noble Eightfold Path is a set of priorities, ordinal not cardinal, not strictly quantities, but still, a useful framework for any more formal or weighted value theory.

The Eightfold Path is neither an ordinal nor cardinal set of priorities- its a conceptual division. And I have no idea how one would use it as a framework in this regard.

During The Enlightenment the various traditions became more unified:

No. The Enlightenment took us from one major tradition (Thomistic Scholasticism) to three or four different theories (utilitarianism, Kantianism, natural rights, self-interest/ contractualism). While there was certainly diversity among scholastics (some favoring Plato, Some Thomas/Aristotle etc.) there was little to no inventiveness in moral philosophy, every theory was just a different way of relating morality to the Christian God.

Immanuel Kant, in his "categorical imperative", sought to define moral duty reflectively, in that everyone was obligated to anticipate and limit the impacts of one's own actions, and "not act as one would not have everyone act.". This can be seen as a restated Golden Rule.

You could see it that way but you would be seeing it wrong. I can explain in detail why this is wrong if need be. Suffice to say that the CI tells you to do different things in some circumstances and is motivated by an entirely different set of concerns than the Golden Rule. Also, the CI has nothing to do with the "impacts" of one's actions.

Anyway, those are the areas I feel most confident commenting on. Others might have more to say.