Shuman, i think that your idea for a topicality shell makes the topicality debates that you engage in too risky. Maybe i'm completely misunderstanding it, so correct me if I'm wrong.
First, if you are simply arguing that topicality is a voter because it is a rule of the game then there is no competing interpretations debate, it seems to me that if topicality is simply a rule of the game then the affirmative would almost always win on a reasonablity standard. This seems like an uphill debate to me because it is far easier to win based off of competing interpretations.
Second, there is no basis for in round abuse in the round, therefore if the judge doesn't vote on potential abuse it would be harder to win.
Third, if you don't ever argue abuse then you can't show that your interpretation is better then the affirmative interpretation, and if you cannot prove that it is better then you would lose most debates based on very vague counterinterpretations that the aff provides, and if it is not a debate over the best definition then limits don't really matter and teams could win on very squirelly affs.
It seems to me like it just makes more sence to read a shell based off of competing interpretations that doesn't take nearly as long to read. Also, the whole idea of using evidence for your standards and voters seems pointless to me. It is just somebody elses analysis on topicality, why not make that yourself. And there is no reason why your author's analysis would outweigh the analydics of the affirmative team.
Why take the risk of losing topicality and the round when you can go for multiple positions and then go straight T in the 2nr if you feal like you are winning it?
Just my thoughts.