Well on the contrary I was especially hoping to see your namings to see how your system would build its name and which name or names it'll end up as with.
That way I might have had a better understanding or at least perception on why to avoid learning chines you were trying to create a similar overkill though beautiful form of gramogols to name some logograms which describe for various specific instruments the shape of a systemic global naming scheme
(Don't read me wrong I'm totally with you on the effort of doing tremendous things to avoid using previously written and used methods, when a kid I spent almost two years to "invent" my method of building lines and chords and so on to avoid opening these horrible books of classical western instrumentation/harmony my teach told me to. In the end I finally read them 15 years later and I must say most of them made a better/clearer job to organize and describe the stuff than my kid self but in the end I already had most of the pulp so it was mostly time lost for my teachs but not too much for me, so go on and just don't expect most everyone will understand at first sight
)
If I had to give it a name at this time I'd probably go for a root-type name, example for the C given initial example:
C-mystic, C-prometheus or even C-scriabin though he mostly used it as arpeggi or constructions.
As for the remark on the fingering that some chords identifiers bots give I'm fully on your side
they can sometimes propose some stuff even Metheny, Holdsworth or Vai wouldn't
that's the reason why I Tabbed it in its one [and only] easy tab scheme.
If you would really break guitaristas hands try a "french sixth" chord form, quite same content than previous but not the same tensions:
Here in F#:
Code: Select all
---10---
---10---
---5----
---8----
---7----
---2----
Note that the same in E is much easier but not a frequently used one:
Code: Select all
---8----
---8----
---3----
---6----
---5----
---0----