These facts point way more plausibly to a premeditated design based on the cubit and right triangles not the Indus foot and π4. But regardless, whatever theory you wish to push it has to falsify this cubit design which has nothing to do with higher math. And falsify it you must because your theory of intent is incompatible and mutually exclusive with the one based on the cubit a simple geometry. You have not done it. Your theory lacks plausibility compared to it.
Likewise the pyramid angle can easily be explained with astronomy available to the ancient Egyptians. The 1.27 differential comes from the two observable orbits ratio 365.25/27.5 / 365.25/35. Sideral period of the Moon and the half period of Sirius' annual vidual absence at Memphis. This half period is enshrined in mummification...35 days drying 35 wrapping. It is embedded in seven small step pyramids made before Giza 1.
Ok, it could still be wrong but you have to prove that it is and your proposal doesn't do that.
The only thing Giza has in common with Stonehenge: An architectural enshrining of a lunar-based cycle. Whatever else you and David see for now only exists in your imagination. If you want to convince an audience of educated people that you got it figured out you need to present better proof.