Your going to face challenges in trying to use the methodology here. Both Caleb and Jas 3.1 address the "show your work" point (which you will have to do more of because of people's unfamiliarity with your system).
However, some are probably going to reject your system anyway and not upvote you very often (and I would likely be one) simply because certain foundational premises are so different than what is understood to be true of language itself.
For instance, on Mechanical Translation (a link from the navigation bar of the AHRC site):
The major advantage to the Mechanical Translation for the student of
the Bible is that it consistently translates each Hebrew word in the
exact same way each time it occurs in the text. This allows the reader to see the Hebrew text, without even knowing Hebrew, in its pure form void from any personal interpretation being interjected into the text.
However, such a translation is not an advantage, nor is it true. It is not true, because choosing to translate "each Hebrew word in the exact same way each time" is interjecting "personal interpretation" into the text, an interpretation that fails to understand that words can have more than one meaning to them within a language (I like to use the English word "bark" as an example, as it has three major usage divisions, with a whole lot of submeanings even within those three areas), and so when translating, isolating the correct word in the target language is important. It is not an advantage, because in most cases it obscures the actual meaning by assuming the word means only this one thing at all times.
The above is such a basic concept of language itself that even the system you are holding to cannot faithfully hold to it, for the chart you reference lists two to four meanings for the pictographic letters. So technically, each letter should have one meaning if it was going to be interpreted "the exact same way each time." Additionally, that chart, while it may (and I have not studied it to know) have some validity in reflecting some idea of the original pictographic meaning of hieroglyphs, fails to then understand or acknowledge that those glyphs turned into an alphabetic form of writing such that the original meaning of the pictograms is not what is relevant any more, but rather the sound structure of the alphabet in forming the word.
So while there are some worthwhile works listed in the site bibliography, the fact that the premise itself is so wrong in how language works and how language develops, it makes the whole premise suspect for really understanding the meaning.
Take your Eye and Shepherd's staff example. Just simply using those two ideas, you gave the meanings of על as it is already understood in meaning. But just using those two ideas of themselves (if the meaning was not already established) there is no reason to not also include:
- The eye is against the Shepherd Staff
- The eye is with the Shepherd Staff
- The eye looks toward the Shepard Staff
- The eye looks under the Shepherd Staff
- The eye looks through the Shepherd Staff
In other words, if the meaning of the word על had to simply be derived from the two ideas of Eye and Shepherd Staff, without already knowing that על has the idea of "over," "upon," etc. (as established by traditional linguistic studies), one could not discern it's true meaning. So the whole idea is suspect there as well, as it largely depends on the meanings obtained by traditional linguistic studies to read back a meaning into the glyph ideas.