Yes. It's not ready. Fix the core disagreements first, make it stand to rigorous analysis, which it doesn't, at least not this forum's, and find it empirically valid. Then you can start the process of making it mainstream.
First thing I would do is create an empiric system of VI. Why? Currently, it looks like advanced phrenology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
Phrenology is fun, but nobody will take that seriously in an academic setting.
BARE MINIMUM is a guide and theory as to why it works, if it works.
For example, we're not looking at the shape of the head, we're looking at the expression of the face. Great, fantastic. That's acceptable, but it's not great.
You're gonna want to actively qualify each and every type, show why the VI must be true with respect to all systems of psychology, and then you're good.
I'm not gonna bother though, I'm just using this for my own purposes, which isn't to revolutionize psychology. You can though, and this would help people out.
Personalized psychology is better than generalized psychology, but for personalized psychology you need to know how to personalize the psych. I assume some people try, but without general guidelines, it doesn't work.
Socionics is the solution. I don't think I need to add to that.
Trying new formatting, it's probably better, or more readable if I separate statements into different groupings so you can see what is a new statement or thought.