Man, posting stuff like this online is practically like hanging a "kick me" sign on the seat of your intellectual pants waving a red cape at me.
Can you spot the first, biggest problem with this chart?
The chart fails to define evil. Instead, it seems to lump everything from the mildly unpleasant to the outright destructive under the heading of "evil".
To make any sense of this chart, to determine the validity of its proposition, we have to first determine the nature of evil.
Can either good or evil exist without free will?
No; the ability to make a moral choice is what defines good and evil.
Is it moral to deprive anyone of the ability to make a moral choice?
No, because without the ability to choose between good and evil, one can not be moral; if one is denied the ability to even consider doing immoral acts, one can not distinguish between the two. There's a key difference -- a moral difference -- between being unable to choose between good and evil vs. being restrained from actually doing evil.
Is granting a person free will so they have the ability to choose between good and evil a moral act?
Yes; because it allows that person total freedom to decide what they desire.
Does God desire for evil to exist?
No.
Does God desire all humans to show compassion for one another and avoid evil of their own free will?
Yes.
Do humans of their own free will disobey God and visit evil on one another?
Yes.
Who then is responsible for evil?
Who do ya think?