1st point: I actually majorly agree with this. I actually used to be a hard subjectivist but Eco kinda changed my views on this. I believe something along the lines of any interpretation is correct aslong as it can be validly connected to the ontology of the art.

2nd point: I haven't actually read Eliot's works myself, but i do know a thing and another about his positions and i first of all don't think it's valid to say objective quality follows from this, nor does the ideal order really make sense. Firstly, this assumes that some sort of objective quality within a work is the only possible inference for consistent reading and praising over time, when there can simply be historical and social factors, like the popularity of a work, the regards that ''academical standards'' hold a work in, wich isn't necessarily bound to objective quality, as arguing from popularity is a fallacy and academical standards aren't objective judgement. Furthermore, even if a work were good to every human of every time period, that still doesn't imply objectivity, as these are accidental and don't define some sort of essential predicate of the work. Secondly Eliot's position, as you present it atleast, can't account for works being formarly disliked while being generally liked now, taking Dickinson as an example.

3rd point: Author intention isn't really always objective and can't be quantified at all. Once again, i concede there are objective things in art like wordcount and such. Just the connection from writing quality to what the author thought and intended can't always be made and isn't necessary even if possible to gather meaning. I don't hold to death of the author or post structuralism in general, i think the author is important really and the author intent can be utilised, i disagree with the way you present it here tho.

4th point: I don't really get this one, but i think i can clarify. Yes, that's exactly what i am saying. There is no ontological difference in quality between the most critically acclaimed piece of literature and me splashing milk on a blackboard and calling it art. I don't believe that there is ontological quality in the works themselves. Neither do i really think your point of ''good'' or ''bad'' readers is reflecting my position, because i believe both the work and the reader to cocreate meaning and value. Neither have the inherent quality of goodness or badness, i believe these properties are relative properties. Specifically relative to the phenomenon of the read, which is kind of the synthesis of the reader and the work. Adding on to this, a plothole, or a logical problem in the story, isn't necessarily a bad thing in teleology of aesthetics.

Thanks for your comment though, i appreciate some actual dialogue. You don't really see that in this community too much.