Warning: it's about to get technical.
I've been looking around for a comprehensive and technical explanation of why discs fly the way they do and everything I've found has been either outright incorrect or not as technical as I wanted. Even if there is another good explanation out there, I want to make a good explanation easier to find on Google.
Therefore, I've compiled an explanation that to my knowledge shows technically how discs work. If any physicists out there catch any errors, please let me know, the last thing I want to do is look like a buffoon claiming that my wrong answer is right.
I should note that there is another post on this website about this topic, but 1) I want to use slightly more technical language and 2) I'm not confident that the effects it describes are entirely responsible for disc flight.
...
There are a few things here I haven't mentioned. First, what determines the speed of a disc. I imagine this is simply a measure of its wind resistance, but I don't know.
Second, what determines the glide of a disc and why the bottom rim of some discs is curved. I imagine this is something to do with fluid dynamics, which I know very little about.
Third, the other post about physics on this website. Frankly, I didn't follow it very well because I couldn't see the figures. However, the parts I did understand were more or less based in good science, but would not create enough force to significantly affect the flight of a disc.
The merit of your post is that you hit the high points. In other words, disc flight comes down to the fact that a disc is 1) an airfoil or wing as well as 2) a gyroscope. The forces (weight plus lift and drag) and the rotational factors such as angular velocity/momentum and changes therein (secondary to torques from lift and drag) are what govern disc flight.
I think that your organization and separating into straight-flying, falling, and rising is somewhat arbitrary. It doesn't really change any of the forces or moments on the disc, just changes the direction and magnitude. But I like most of your figures, and I agree that it would be helpful for new folks to have good photos to grasp these concepts.
The thread that is stickied, which you referenced, is there because it's the longest and most complete, even though it also has the most INCORRECT information. You have to sift through some bad stuff to find the good.
Here is
another thread, called "Disc Golf / Frisbee Physics 101" which has very good information (the user, john63, very briefly hopped onto DGCR here and added some very good info). In particular, you will sound like a doofus if you talk about this stuff without having read Hummel's thesis (a Masters thesis from UC Davis around 2005 related to ultimate discs). The Potts & Crowther lab in the UK is also excellent, and I remember one particularly good paper (5-10 years ago) that compared some molds, such as the Aviar, Buzzz, Flick, and Wraith. Some of your discussion on the PLH or OS/US discs is confusing to me. I think it's easy to fall into a trap where you try to make the strict/technical physics stuff apply to the geometry of discs. It's commendable, but I've read lots of posts that try to connect all the physics things to more practical aspects of disc design... and I don't think anyone has quite gotten it right. Or maybe it's just not worth trying to get right?
Glide and Speed are artificial values, somewhat arbitrary, assigned by golfers and designers. Glide tries to quantify lift, and speed tries to quantify drag. But since all these things are velocity dependent (and angle of attack), they're imperfect even if they can be helpful sometimes (i.e. in describing how a disc flies to someone who has never thrown the disc).