Yeah I think I've seen that one Jim.

We have to be careful with diagrams such as yours because of the unknowns such as where the descending begins with the imaginary casing. I say imaginary because it is missing and everyone has to calculate slope and where that slope meets with the extended passageway. An incorrectly identified base for example throws everything out by a couple of inches, maybe more.

These random 2x1 rectangles are always interesting but they must be incorporated into the whole so as to identify the process that the architect followed. For instance can we identify the remainder of the geometry that this rectangle belongs to?. It looks difficult.

There is also the problem of passageway altitudes and how they don't quite agree with rectangle diagonals. They are close so we generally accept that close enough is good enough. These masons obviously knew how to maintain consistent altitudes burrowing down into solid rock or building with stone so we assume their tools or templates were adequate for the job. There is no evidence they knew angles as we do so they must have fashioned out wood or stone templates to represent the angles of carefully constructed rectangles. I don't see a problem with that but it does require some pretty sophisticated measuring techniques.

I much prefer to work on the pyramid plan in its entirety where it might become apparent that the oddities of the chambers can only belong to one system. If not all three chambers then at least the main chamber. You must admit that its height above base and its off center position are a challenge for any geometer. If that can be achieved then maybe the rest will fall into place.

Yes, I am intersted in numbers as you are, and as were those early egyptians who thought it necessary to formulate a well thought out and meaningful measuring system,