https://cabforum.org/ev-code-signing-certificate-guidelines/
Whereas for the Web PKI (things that do SSL/TLS, including most obviously HTTPS on the web) there are both the baseline requirements for every certificate:
https://cabforum.org/baseline-requirements-documents/
and EV for adding "extended validation" to that:
https://cabforum.org/extended-validation/
It's kinda useless to have a certificate that says this program is really named "Great Calculator". Oh yeah? So what? Whereas a certificate that says it's from "Microsoft Corp" in "Washington, US" at least tells me whose fault this calculator program is when it wrecks my PC.
On the other hand, knowing this is really https://news.ycombinator.com/ is kinda good because the machine can (and does) automatically check that this matches on every single URL resolved, every image, every HTTP POST, everything.
I had to give them a published telephone number for a callback. I don't publish a phone number, so I setup a Skype Number and published it in a free Yellow Pages kind of site - they did a callback, which obviously totally proves I work for Acme Stuff, and then I removed the listing and Skype Number.
I recall there were a couple of other bits of theatre I had to endure, publishing information on random listing sites that don't do any validation of their own, but I don't remember exact what.
Windows is my daily driver, and I'm security-minded - yet I haven't noticed different colours for UAC dialogs depending on signature type. I notice if it's not signed at all, of course, but otherwise... no?
I would imagine most typical end users are the same. Similar to how browsers are not actually, where they make it really obvious if a site doesn't use TLS, otherwise it all looks the same.