I have rarely seen such a farrago of special pleading, circular reasoning, and overinterpretation. And you answer with such a flood of claims, many of them redundant, that it is hard to know where to start. So, just a few salient points.

"… Abraham’s favorite son was Ishmael. We know that, because Abraham pleads Ishmael’s case to YHWH, something that Abraham so obviously does not do for Isaac in the harrowing binding incident…. Ishmael was Abraham’s favorite son, which can be seen by comparing what Abraham is reported as saying at Genesis 17: 18 with what Abraham does not say at Genesis 21: 1-7 and in chapter 22 of Genesis."

In Genesis 17, Ishmael is Abraham’s only son, and Abraham doubts there will ever be another. It is not evidence that he favours Ishmael over Isaac, because Isaac is not born yet. In Chapter 22, God is testing Abraham by demanding the sacrifice of his beloved son - pleading Isaac’s case would mean failing the test. You’re reading into the story things that are not there.

"It’s more of the same in the next generation, where Esau is obviously Isaac’s favorite son, as he brings his father tasty game. Younger twin son Jacob only manages to get his father’s blessing by the dubious expedient of impersonating his older, favored twin brother!"

I’m familiar with the story; it’s hilarious, like much of the saga of Jacob the Trickster. So what event in Years 12-14 at Amarna does this vivid episode reflect, precisely?

"(snip)… The pattern is clear. The favorite son -- Thutmose, Ishmael, Esau and Joseph -- gets the shaft and properly so."

The biblical trope is irrelevant because - as many have pointed out to you - Thutmose was not passed over in Akhenaten’s favour. Thutmose died.

"…snip…Each of Abraham and Jacob represents the first Hebrew, and each of them shares many characteristics with Akhenaten. In particular, each of Akhenaten, Abraham and Jacob is a younger son, not his father’s favorite son, whose birth mother was his father’s original main wife #1, and who ends up being the winning son after all."

Let’s parse this:
Abraham: is mentioned first among the sons of Terah, so is more likely the eldest rather than the youngest; no data on who his father’s favourite son was; no data on his birth mother or her status.
Akhenaten: a younger son, who became eldest son when his brother died; no data on who his father’s favourite son was; both he and his brother were sons of the same “original main” wife.
Jacob: a younger son; not his father’s favourite; both he and his brother were sons of the same “original main” wife.

From this example of your reasoning, it looks to me like fancy footwork plus a fair amount of data-creation to try shoving Abraham and Akhenaten into Jacob’s mold. In fact, the same thing could be said of all your identifications of biblical with Amarna characters: you play mix’n’match with different traits at your own convenience, and you make traits up when you need to so that they will “match perfectly”.

"I do not think that Amenhotep III ever consummated a marriage with Tadukhepa. Tushratta refers to Amenhotep III as his “son-in-law” six months before Tadukhepa is ever sent to Egypt!...[snip]… Although Tushratta refers to Akhenaten as his “son-in-law”, I myself doubt that Akhenaten ever consummated that diplomatic marriage which had been forced upon him.

Not an important point, but I'm interested in how you like to have it both ways. So in your view, she was never really married to either of them?

"The teraphim are family statues, being the family gods. KJV uses the translation of “images”. They were tangible items, in the nature of statues, of family gods. Tushratta requests statues of himself and Tadukhepa for a family mausoleum. So in both cases, we’re talking about family statues."

I repeat, teraphim were cult objects, but there is no firm agreement on what form they took, nor if all teraphim were in the same form. Second, do you have a reference to back up your claim the statues were intended for a family mausoleum? Third, you’re committing the fallacy of equivocation, using “family statues” in two different senses.

“If I am “cherry-picking narrative motifs”, then please refer to a story in the Patriarchal narratives that, in your opinion, is not redolent of Years 12-14.”

I’m pretty sure, whatever story is brought up, that you will find some way of shoehorning it into your narrative. My example of no bride marrying first a father then a son was answered by bringing up Tamar, who (generations later) did the reverse. Do you actually consider that a hit? Your methodology makes your results unfalsifiable - and therefore, useless. But hey, show us your mettle. Lot’s wife. Jacob’s ladder.