I am posting this here, rather than in the Scripture forum, for two reasons:
Your criteria are traditional ones, but some of them have problems.
1) Christocentrism. This has led people to read into the OT content that the original author didn't intend. I agree that the purpose of Scripture is to tell us about Christ, but I think we have to be very careful about using that purpose in detailed exegesis. My commitment is to look at what the original author would have meant.
2) Clarity over ambiguity. That is a problem as well. It can lead us to accept the most unlikely reading because it's the most explicit. So Paul seems to accept female leaders but never come out and says "there can be female leaders." 1 Tim, however, rejects them. So we go with 1 Tim. Bad idea. The exegesis of Gen 3 in 1 Tim is absurd.
I think what we need to do is look at how a topic is treated throughout Scripture, and how Jesus treats it, and try a synthesis. But I'm not averse to ignoring an extreme voice.
3) Homolegomena > antilegomena. That I agree with, though not everyone would agree on which are antilegomena. I include the NT outside the Gospels, Acts and the undisputed letters of Paul. It seems like you may agree.
4) Literary context. yes
5) General context. yes. In addition to what you say, I suggest that one of the first things we should ask about a passage is "what point was the author trying to make." Sometimes an author's incidental belief becomes the main significance of a passage (e.g. Rom 1 is about idolatry, not sexual ethics, though it certainly shows us something about Paul's attitudes to sex).
6) Description is not proscription. ok
7) Tradition. Looking at historical understanding is certainly useful. E.g. I often refer to Calvin's commentaries. But at times our views change. This happened in the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and more recently with better understanding of the Jewish background of the NT. That means that the relevant tradition at times may only be those who are informed by these things.
We both belong to confessional churches. At least in the PCUSA, this means that we understand Scripture as a community. It does not mean that the community's understanding can't change. Indeed if there was no change given the major developments in science, archaeology, literary criticism, and understanding of the 1st Cent, I'd be very suspicious.