last few weeks of transactions when we apply the rules of the first two parts of the EIP to it, don't seem to actually support the narrative

This is fundamentally an invalid way of evaluating such a proposal. Core to the proposal (and also a reasonable assumption) is that it is intended to change behavior. Back testing it in this manner is literally garbage-in garbage-out.

Apart from that methodological criticism, your other ideas may well have merit (I'm not judging either way), but it is a long way from that to actually seeing them implemented on the blockchain. The ideas behind the EIP have been explored carefully for several months to in some cases the better part of three years and the degree of advocacy, education, slowly-gained understanding, and consensus-building behind it may not be apparent at first glace, but it is extensive.

If you want to see your ideas move forward realistically: a) you should be presenting it as perhaps an EIP 2.0 rather than alternative, b) you will have to follow through with promoting the ideas to stakeholders and devs both individually and via public posts over what is likely to be an extended period of education and consensus-building. I'm not suggesting whether you should or should not do this, that is up to you.