Just to be clear - in Step 10 of the OP, Mark raises the following point:

Quote
“Mark Heaton”

Step 10
Consider 360 degrees in a circle from 360 days in a year plus 5 extra days to get 365 days.

It is peculiar that the slope of the Red Pyramid is slightly less than 45 degrees (1/8 x circumference of circle) because the configuration of the pyramid appears to be based on a division of the antechamber and pyramid as if a circle had been divided into sections 1/8 x circumference of a circle, ingeniously so for the antechamber with the centre of the circle at the centre of the chamber.

As such, Mark is relying upon degrees as an angular measure as part of his model. My prior post was to identify that the present consensus position presented in Clagett is that degrees as an angular measure were not known to the Egyptians. Conman has presented an alternative position by challenging Neugebauer’s model of the Decan stars. She builds upon that to present an argument that the planetary hypsomata in Hellenistic astrology have an Egyptian origin and in that paper presents an opinion that a simple allocation of three decans to a zodiac sign occurs. This offers an opening that the Egyptians were aware of degrees as an angular measure. However, I don’t believe that was the intention of Conman’s statement. I read the statement based on Conman’s earlier paper “Its about time..” that the Decans were about measuring time and a consequence of that is that they also measure angle, even though the Egyptians may not have been aware of the angular measure component. I confirmed that understanding with Conman directly.

As such, even where we accept Conman’s papers over the consensus presented by Clagett, there is no evidence of angular measure using degrees. We remain limited to linear ratios for measuring angles. So the slope of the pyramid being 45 degrees as well as other subsequent measures in degrees used by Mark in his model become problematic from a context perspective.