P#1 = NO definite article / no adjective ~ (focus is on simple fact of Existence)
P#2 = NO art. / one adj ~ (focus is on Being’s Character or Nature – good or evil)
P#3 = ONE art. / no adj ~ (focus is on Activity of the Being)
P#4 = ONE art. / one adj ~ (focus is on Being)
P#5 = TWO art. / one adj ~ (focus is on Essence of the Being)
If you intend to show this to people who actually understand Greek, like Stafford and BeDuhn, you really need to take this back to the drawing board and try again. The use of the article does not break down into the kind of "foci" you posit here....I don't know where you derived these generalizations from. These five categories reflect simple surface patterns that can each embrace a range of different pragmatic and grammatical concerns. Pneuma, for instance, can have an individuated sense as a member of a class (a "spirit" that is one of a class of "spirits") or it could refer generically to the class itself in contrast to other classes ("spirit" as opposed to "flesh"). The articular to pneuma may refer to an individuated spirit or generically to spirits or an abstraction thereof as "the spirit" (in much the same way that ho anthropos can refer to an individual "man" or it can refer in general to "man" or "humankind", a context where the article would not occur in English). The use or non-use of the article with respect to individuated spirits depends on many contextual factors such as anaphoricity, whether the referrent is unique or outstanding within the class (as the "Holy Spirit" may be depending on how it is construed by the author), whether one individual is being distinguished from another, etc. Writers may vary considerably themselves, where the usage is more a matter of style. The article-noun-article-adjective pattern of your P#5, for instance, simply substantivizes the adjective.....if anything the sense is closer to what you describe for P#2 with the quality related by the adjective receiving added emphasis. I have no idea where "essence of the being" comes from.
The Watchtower claim is equally dubious, of course. One could similarly point out that the phrase huios theou "Son of God" often lacks an article (cf. Matthew 14:33, 27:54, Mark 15:39, Luke 1:35, etc.), and thus conclude Jesus as the Son of God is not a person, although of course "son" is inherently personal.
As Narkissos points out, a contextual literary analysis is the way to go if you are interested in theological "portraits" which vary from author to author.
