I struggle to see which of the ten topics of conversation the establishment of an additional layer of descriptive rhetoric overtop the Suttas falls into.
"Descriptive rhetoric" is your interpretation...
"The Noble Truth of Suffering (dukkha), monks, is this: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, association with the unpleasant is suffering, dissociation from the pleasant is suffering, not to receive what one desires is suffering — in brief the five aggregates subject to grasping are suffering.
Here is a fine example which you've provided. If I understand you correctly, you would like to say that the green text is sammuti sacca, and that the red text is paramattha sacca. Well, before I agree or disagree with this, I want to find out why you're bothering to bifurcate this Sutta text in this way in the first place.
Why is this being done? What purpose does it serve? How does it add to an understanding of this passage?
What I take from passages like that is something like:
We see that we are suffering in gross ways: "Sickness, associating with the unpleasant, ..."
With wisdom we can also see that if we drill down into these experiences we have the:
"five aggregates subject to grasping are suffering"
These are elaborated upon in the "Second Discourse": http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which allows the group of five to see that all those phenomena are anicca, dukkha, anatta, and leads them to liberation.
So these experiences of dukkha from "associating with the unpleasant" can be re-oriented into:
"feelings, impermanent, ... painful since subject to change, [not] fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"
That our phenomenological world can be viewed in these different ways, either in terms of "beings" or as "khandhas, etc" seems to me to be central to the Buddha's liberation teachings.