Your heart is quite clearly in the right place. No doubts there. My concerns arise from a few things -- first of all, from a cursory review of your methods in assessing your theory against others in terms of validity, as judged by LLMs. You list your theory as just one of many, instead of giving it a special position, which is good. However, all the other theories, as far as I can tell, are fairly thoroughly documented in the training data. The LLMs can effortlessly derive that yours is the odd one out because they haven't heard of it before. That does open the door to sycophantic reinforcement, unfortunately. Now, as far as your assessment criteria... I feel like they're a bit subjective, and driven by a presupposed moral frame. Some of the criteria require moral assumptions in order to be viewed as valid criteria, which makes me feel like the theory is chasing its own tail a bit. I also wasn't able to find the theory beyond the sentence or two description in the lineup with the other theories. Do you have a more complete and explicit definition somewhere? I'd definitely be interested to read it.
I suppose my general concern is that, so far, it has felt like the theory seems to be the water in which Bay Area folk swim. I get that the idea is for it to be so obviously true that any intelligent entity would agree almost implicitly, but I don't see that as necessarily being the case. Again, I would like to either talk to you about the theory and how it runs up against certain moral scenarios, or just read a more complete description of the theory. Either would allow me to update my rating to more accurately reflect what I think of the theory itself, though I'm giving you points for being motivated by good intentions.