Just because a theory is consistent with the facts does not mean the facts prove the theory.
The Great Pyramid G1 once stood alone on the Giza plateau, that is without G2 and G3, and the next king after Khufu built elsewhere. That's why I have used a picture of just G1 in my new monograph.
Khafre then decided to go back to Giza. It seems very likely that Khafre's architect was instructed to consider the position of G2 in relation to G1 so it would appear right.
I think that the most important aspect of G2 in relation to G1 is that G2 was built on higher ground thus giving the illusion of being higher than G1.
The mystery of G2 is that the intended height appears to have been approximately 274 royal cubits in the knowledge that G1 is slightly higher at 280 royal cubits. Human nature is to want to build higher, especially as the pyramids are next to each other.
The seked of G2 is 5 1/4 palms which would have translated very nicely into a height of 280 royal cubits for a base side-length of 420 royal cubits. There has to be a good reason why G2 was made slightly smaller, assuming it was built after G1.
The architect of G3 had to think very carefully about the position of G3 so as not to ruin the appearance of the whole site. Perhaps he saw the saw the stars in Orion's belt as a sign?
It is possible to devise any number of theories to account for the heights of the pyramids or the positions of the pyramids, or the base lengths of the pyramids. A model integrating all nine aspects would be interesting, but not conclusive of a plan from the outset.
It seems unlikely that Khufu ordered all three pyramids, with G2 looking more impressive than his own pyramid.
It is also unlikely that his successor neglected to carry on with the plan having been given the pick of the plots with G2 at the centre.
Robert Bauval's Orion Correlation Theory 'OCT' may have been in the mind of Menkaure without having been considered by Khufu or Khafre.
In my opinion it is unlikely that a geometric theory will ever match the elegance of OCT.
Mark