You provided specific examples that do not fall under Sharp's Rule 1 as he stated it. The arguments I saw where against Wallace, who does not follow what Sharp wrote in 1803, who makes an unnecessarily convoluted argument clearing up the exceptions when sticking to Sharp's statement would have saved him a lot of time ....
RULE 1When the copulative καὶ connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle." (Sharp, Remarks..., 1803, p. 3).
So now we will reject Wallace totally, and go to Sharp, who blunders everywhere, and claims verses in the NT that you reject (even after discounting the textual verses where Sharp theorized absurdly.)
First, there is nothing there about proper names. So you can extrapolate that any which way you desire, to include these words and exclude those. Very flexible. Very meaningless.
Second, you have already said that the categories are fluid, and that it depends on how the writer was thinking. Thus, the specific wording will NOT tell you if the NT writer is saying "Jesus is God" or giving a beautiful verse with dual addressing, as in dozens of NT verses.
Thirds, you are simply ignoring piles of exceptions that have been documented, since you think there are no exceptions.
Fourth, why do you decline to consider the Holy Spirit a "personal description" since your view is that the Holy Spirit is a person?
By not answering these questions clearly, you can fudge the connection band overlap between Rule 1 and Rule 4. Nice trickster game. Quite transparent.