I'm still trying to figure out how this solves any problems in a novel or even useful way.

It borrows somewhat from standard conceptions of the scientific method, but neither acknowledges this nor does it explain the unreasonable effectiveness of science.

It acknowledges criticisms of perspective and subjectivity, but you haven't really shown a solution to those critiques. (Descartes' project is not widely regarded as successful, so terminating in the "contents of consciousness" is not an obviously successful strategy.)

As a heuristic to approach an evidence-backed discussion, it seems fine, but we already have rules for argumentation that are roughly equivalent (though without the "unit" framing). However, I don't really see how it solves philosophical problems.