Question on "complexity" column in `index.md`

As we discussed on Teams, I'm working on a PR from my fork of this repo to add some of the new information learned from the April 2024 mapping demo day. Since the last major update to `index.md`, we have a lot more examples of tools across government which I think would be helpful to add to the `Look and feel` section of this page.

One of the things I'd like to do is simplify the table (see screenshot below) to:
- add a column that makes it more clear to the reader which of the four frameworks listed in the above section applies to each tool (e.g. SaaS, Gov-hosted, DIY, or Custom)
- Combine `Client` and `Example` column into one, where we have a list of the client or tool name that is hyperlinked instead of writing out the URL. This would make it easier to list multiple tools for the same framework

One question is the `Complexity` column. Does "complexity" apply to the framework or specific tool (looks like the latter but want to be sure). Also, how is it determined? Is it still necessary to have? The table might be neater if we dropped this column. Would love to hear thoughts.


Start with index.md and read the Look and feel section and its current table. Review the four frameworks and the existing Complexity, Client, and Example columns, then determine how Complexity is defined before deciding whether the proposed table changes are appropriate. Done means the table structure and the treatment of Complexity are agreed and documented.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.