Regarding your comments on square roots, Im not sure you noticed my paper on root two at Giza, mentioned here -

[www.hallofmaat.com]

Doubtless many will consider the 'sea level' plan as fantasy or coincidence but, putting this to one side, the essential proposition is that the AE approximated irrationals as whole numbers, derived from simple series (usually attributed to Theon of Smyrna), and generated using techniques like pebble counting, or the addition of squares. For root two -

1 3 7 17 41 99 239 577 1393 ...
1 2 5 12 29 70 169 408 985 ...

But perhaps the AE employed other approximations like 10/7? In this case the difference from root two is greater than using the simpler 7/5 ratio. If 10/7 was selected at Dashur, say for numerological reasons, it gives : bend 90 above pavement, base 180 divided in the proportion 63 : 117 = 7 : 13 and, if the upper slope is 45 degrees, total height becomes 207 Rc (?).
Whatever the intended figures one might expect to find clues in the interior geometry. Legon attempted this for the western passage in an elegant analysis (albeit using 362 for pyramid base and 90 height to bend) but the revised figure for Bent upper slope contradicts his scheme.

Apropos root two, Legon also put forward an overall layout for Giza derived from a square of 1000 cubits, giving an overall 'envelope' from the northeast corner of Khufu to the southwest corner of Menkaure measuring 1000 X root three north/south (1732) and, approximately, 1000 X root two east/west (1417.5). But Legon used a longer cubit than the 0.5236m derived from Khufu base and use of this shorter cubit by Butler allowed a different interpretation of pyramid dispositions. In addition he noticed that the proportions of internal chambers were defined by this arrangement (no other Giza plan, to my knowledge, provides a dimensional analysis which attempts to incorporate as many features as possible and not just pyramid bases).Even so Legon's root rectangle remains like a shadow. Being derived from unity X 1000, it implies an intended 'ideal' value for root two 1414 but this cannot be factored in terms of Theon's series.

On the other hand Khufu represents a play on the ratio 99/70 for root two, and 7/11 (for what?) resulting in an harmonious scheme for passage and chamber layout (one which apparently 'rationalised' in elevation the positions of heavenly targets in the layout of the shafts). According to Miatello (2010. quoting Dorner) the chambers of the Red are laid out on a theme of 7 and 11, while the additional factor 19 makes a base of 418 (11 X 19). At Meidum (7/11) there is a simple relation between pyramid and passage layout (Legon) but it is difficult to interpret Miatello's scheme in like manner. (And is the descending passage angle the diagonal of a double square as he has it - I thought it was somewhat steeper?)
It will be interesting to see what good data for the Bent interior will tell us.