I guess I will simply summarize my thoughts.
I do not agree we can deny a demythologized version of the chaos motif in Genesis 1, it is pretty explicit and repeated throughout the Tanakh in back references to creation. This means the ordering/filling of the formless chaotic earth and heavens (featuring the dividing of restless waters blown upon by God, as in the Enuma Elish) is the theme. The formless heaven and earth are not created they are assumed to exist primordially. This eliminates 2 (heaven and earth) of the 22.
The parsing of the other 20 is not necessary or evident, the plants for example are featured twice in the narrative. The one is their creation (day 3) the other is the usage (day 6), these are not two creative acts. BTW green plants are divided 3 ways, grass, herb and tree. Why only count 2 at their creation on day 3 and only 1 at the command to eat them on day 6 when herbs and trees are listed separately? Then notice in the summary of vs30 all three divisions of plants are lumped as 'herbs'. Clearly the author was concerning himself with "green plants" and waxed on regarding the varieties but did not numerate them as separate creations.
In this same, vein vs. 26 in contrasting humans from the other creatures the author repeats his enumerating as 3 categories (not 6 as you do in the chart), creatures of the sea, air and land.
I'll also repeat that the widely accepted chiastic structure, 3 days and 3 corresponding days, works very well and is consistent with similar chiastic structures in Genesis. The approach you are suggesting is unnecessary and foreign.
Also, I believe it is a mistake to assume the Hasidic author of Jubilees had any insight into the original intent of the author of Genesis. In fact, he added and subtracted from the Genesis story freely. His respect for the work did not preclude his adaptation of it. As we know he drew from other parts of the 22 sacred writings for his angel creation on the first day for instance. His reordering Genesis material and creating artificial 7 and 49 year schemas are key features of the work. No, I don't believe the author is concerned with originality.
I also seriously doubt the author of Gen 1 was consciously referencing the Tent or ark. That later theologians saw symbolism in those objects with Genesis reveals the imagination of the theologians, perhaps with an eye to deny the designs were of non-Yahwist origins. There isn't sufficient verbal connections nor any explicit link in the Tanakh.
Hope that didn't come across poorly, in truth I find the topic and your research interesting.