Realising that it’s a pointless exercise for investment purposes.
3% allocation for Switzerland will not make any meaningful difference over the long-term. And that fund is highly concentrated on its top three holdings: about 45% is Nestlé, Roche, Novartis alone. Stocks that will probably be overrepresented in your 2nd pillar pension fund anyway. The correlation of MSCI Switzerland with MSCI World has been so great for decades, that one will be ahead a few percentage points at times and the other at others. Over the long-term, the difference has been and likely will be merely statistical noise.
The same is, broadly, true for your 10% small cap exposure. Small cap indices move in sync with mid- and large-cap indices. A small “small cap premium” is often observable - but if you believe in that, why not not capitalise on it by making a (modest) bet on it and allocate 25% or 30% to it? It will also serve to increase your portfolio’s diversification, which is generally good. At least in stocks, though probably not (but rather to the contrary) geographically. At 10%, it will only make a negligible difference.
Now, for emerging markets, things are slightly different. They aren’t as heavily correlated to major large-/mid cap world indices. For instance, MSCI Emerging Markets has returned about 0% year-to-date (end of october actually), while MSCI World is up about 19%. That’s a huge difference - but again, a small one for your portfolio overall, and EM seem to be capable of considerably outperforming the developed work over short periods - but not over the long term. Still, if you believe in some sort of reversal to the mean, why not bet on it?
In the end, you could go just as well with 99% (CH) III Equity World ex CH Blue and be done with. Nobody would be able to predict whether you’ll be ahead or behind compared to your proposed allocation in 1, 5, 10 or 20 years of time. The difference will likely be minuscule.