>>I think it's important to distinguish here between phenomena that belong to the natural world - e.g., animals, plants, geology - and phenomena that are the result of human intervention, such as the architecture and design of the pyramids.<<
Yes it’s helpful to distinguish them but we still have to answer the question is the former something that we can relate evidence to? If not then there is no use in asking for evidence for anything. If it is, then as I pointed out before we should look through the different theories that relate to the planning of the particular pyramid and choose the one that best agrees with the observations.

>>You've made some mentions of phenomena such as atomic elements, the periodic table, etc., and have suggested that these are somehow linked to pyramid planning. So far, however, you haven't produced any solid evidence of any interconnection or relationship between these two separate concepts.<<
As I pointed out before it all depends. One “evidence” might be considered less solid in relation to other “evidence”. In this case the first can be called “soft” while the second “hard”. But we need to know what were are comparing it to. So what is it?

Keep in mind that one theory is better than another if it is simpler and can explain a greater amount of aspects of a certain object of study(pyramid in our case). Thus if one theory proposes a simple hypothesis like “architectural elements of the GP(dimensions, external course configuration, internal chamber height placement) are based on Bismuth information” then it is superior to another theory that has to resort to more complex or greater in number hypothesises(based on theology, mathematics, etc) that are shaped around the observations and that cannot be shown to predict anything new(predict things). The physical construction of a building and it’s architectural planning are two separate concepts, so every theory that wishes to explain it’s planning automatically creates an interconnection or relationship between these two concepts. Pyramid planning relates to what the architects want to show us, and my theory implies that what they want to show us – among other things - is scientific information relating to the element Bismuth. Theory matches observation thus this is solid evidence. The only way this evidence can be “softened” is if another theory is more self consistent, simple, and better agrees with the observations. And of course a bad theory is better than no theory.