Just as with the "potentially hazardous asteroids" thread in this subforum, the problem here is scientists and non-scientists being divided by a common language: these planetary scientists are using words like "habitable" in a very different sense to how the general public, science-fiction fans and ED players would use that word. They mean "planet with theoretical potential for finding lifeforms with similar chemistry to our own". We mean "planet you could land on, take off your spacesuit, open the airlock, take a deep breath... and not die".
Look at the planets in ED. 99% of the planets inside the "goldilocks zone" do not have liquid water on the surface (in-game, they're HMCs, not waterworlds). Only 5% of the planets that do have liquid water are "habitable" i.e. Earth-Like planets. All up, only a tiny fraction of planets in the "habitable zone" are actually habitable. In ED, all water worlds have life, some perhaps even abundant life, but yet all of them, except for the ones designated as ELWs, have atmospheres that would kill us. According to current models, even Earth, for most of Earth's history, would not have qualified as "Earth-like".
We simply don't have enough data to know if these worlds in the TRAPPIST-1 system are actually Earth-like in terms of presence of life, atmospheric composition etc. To use in-game analogies, they might be HMCs, Waterworlds or even ELWs, but at the moment the system map is just showing black blobs with question marks in them. We know the planets are there, but that's all. We can't tell the difference, and have no way of telling the difference from here with our current technology.
