that doesn't factor in either (A) intentionality
You might wish to explain how you know what he intended.
I have read Kubrick's interviews. He often discusses tangential issues; he sometimes discusses something which might be called general intent; but he almost never comments upon content or details which interest me. Or you. E.g. he doesn't say the bottles on the table in the billiard room in Eyes Wide Shut refer to a "Scotch" masonic rite, nor does he even confirm how many bottles there are; nor does he confirm how many books are in the shelves in that same room, or their subject matter, or their Dewey Decimal codes, etc. See the problem? One can interpret what one perceives in a movie; but a viewer's interpretation of his perceptions is not the same as the director's intent. To equate the two implies either mind reading or a delusion. One might leave at "I like my interpretation--you might too" instead of "I've found the key to the movie; I can explain it; I know what he intended. Victory is mine. You can all go home now."
Another redditor writes over and over again he knows what Kubrick intended for EWS; but his assertions of what he "knows" Kubrick intended contradict your assertions of what you know Kubrick intended. And it isn't that he and you accept one may interpret the same details in more than one way; no, in effect he denies that and he assures us only his interpretations are Kubrick's intent all the way. He tells us over and over how much work he has done and how many screenshots he has. Blah blah blah. And here you are with:
I really don't think this is up for debate anymore.
You do as he does. You give a polite nod to "one may interpret a movie as one pleases," but when it gets down to brass tacks--to what that particular movie really (in some sense is)--you have the secret. You even call it "The Grand Secret at the heart of EWS." You do not call it "One enjoyable way of thinking about EWS."
I don't worry about intent. I shall never know it in the instances I might wish to. Shaw wrote prefaces to his plays and discussed them; Henry James wrote essays about his novels and discussed them; Wagner wrote essays about his operas and discussed them. And you know what? Much of what they wrote, while of some interest to me, does not address specific questions I and others have. E.g. Leonard Bernstein wondered in The Unanswered Question if Wagner knowingly "borrowed" and then transformed themes from a Berlioz work. Wagner discusses that work but does not discuss his "borrowing." I shall never know the answer I seek. I shall not pretend I do know.
I put it another way. Either a director's intent ends up in a movie--in which case I can ignore that intent and pay attention to the movie; or his intent does not end up in a movie--in which case I can again ignore it and again pay attention to the movie. In a theater I see a movie, I do not see intent. In a theater I enjoy a movie; I do not enjoy intent. In a theater I see movie, I do not see the director. (I do thank the director for making the movie.)
Were I to concern myself with intent, I'd have to face all kinds of bizarre issues. Hypothetically, if I knew a director intended a movie to be a comedy but I do not find it funny at all, or if I knew he intended a movie to be serious but I laugh at it, what do I do?; if I knew Ed Wood intended Plan 9 from Outer Space to be the best movie ever made, what do I do?; etc. And those are in the best cases in which I know intent; what do I do in all the cases in which I don't?
Choices. A viewer is or is not to distinguish between a continuity error and deep meaning? A director is fallible or infallible? (Famous last words.) Every detail in a movie is meaningful, or only details you claim are meaningful? (E.g. did or didn't you count those books and determine their Dewey Decimal numbers?)
I don't care if you claim your idea is his intent or is consistent with it, or via some statistical analysis is highly probable at some confidence level to be related to it in some way. That is irrelevant to me. I consider that a poor way to discuss any movie, and any interpretation.
Typically I do not know intent; I don't worry about it. I do not--cannot--use it as a criterion against which I match an interpretation because, again, I simply do not know it. Your idea stands or falls on its own (or hangs suspended in air)--until or unless you uncover objective evidence of Kubrick's intent. You seem unwilling to accept that; you keep insisting you have the secret. Fine.