Chris, thanks for reading the OP and for constructing your post using its terms. It’s been helpful to my thinking. Here are my responses to your proposed “assumptions” one by one.
I don’t hold this assumption because I don’t believe the Bible has scientific content. On the contrary, I believe it would be anachronistic of us, and - if can borrow a concept from you and Walton - culturally insensitive, to suggest that it does.
As for the issue of science, I deal with it in the first “Stipulation” of the OP:
Therefore, because I don’t hold this assumption and because the essential point you’re wanting to make - especially in your bullets - is already addressed in the OP, I’ll leave it as is.
Your definition of “accommodation” is based on your view that the Bible speaks a deficient form of science. You are not accepting these ancient Scriptures on their own terms. You are imposing modern Western intellectual paradigms on pre-modern writers. As has been rightly said, “The Scriptures were written for us, not to us.” To assume that it’s trying - however feebly - to address the scientific concerns we have is to be anachronistic. I don’t think this way about the Scriptures and therefore don’t carry the assumption here that you are proposing.
I think here you have indeed hit on something that would be useful to add to “Assumptions” of Mosaic Creation in the OP. I’ve already inserted it as assumption “2.a.” I did, however, need to modify the wording as it didn’t accurately describe me the form you originally proposed it.
Thanks again for your helpful post.