Just as a comparative/historical point, under the old judging system, as of the latest revisions to the short program deduction guidelines, the deduction for "Less than required revolutions" on a short program jump was 0.4, same as for a fall.
And the maximum deduction for an element that was attempted was 0.4. The largest deduction was 0.5 for a complete omission.
So in the old system a fall on a triple or a beautiful clean double or fall on a double or a popped single whether landed cleanly badly or or with a fall resulted in the same deduction.
Of course the judges could take into account what was actually executed when setting the base mark, but we had no way of knowing how much weight they gave to the number of revolutions.
A top skater who was obviously capable of triples could completely miss one of the short program jumps and still end up with scores as high as 5.4/5.8 if the judge used the intended element to set the base mark. (See the Swiss judge's scores for Maria Butyrskaya in the 1998 Worlds SP, where her intended combination came out as only a half lutz.)
The new system does allow more distinctions between most different combinations of errors.
A few distinctions have fallen through the cracks, and I see that you're trying to close up those cracks.
But if the purpose of the short program is to execute required elements on demand, and also to reward the overall quality of the program appropriately, then beyond a certain point failure on an element is failure on the element and further distinctions are unnecessary.
A very messy double, as opposed to a good double, where a triple is required can also be penalized in Performance/Execution.