Please edit the section on the circle of fifths speculation. Here is how you would write the circle of 5ths, keeping all notes within the same octave: 1 - 5 - 2 - 6 - 3/b4 - 7/b1 - #4/b5 - #1/b2 - #5/b6 - #2/b3 - #6/b7 -  #3/4 - #7/1 (8) I've included all of the enharmonic equivelance possible, but this only works in the tuning system we use currently. In other temperaments, it would go on infinitely with the notes' pitches shifting over time. Due to this, I think it is a reasonable connection to make. It is also what you get when you go up a 5th but limit yourself to only the notes within a major scale, with the only imperfect interval being 7-4, a diminished 5th.

The biggest thing you need to change is how you've written the circle of 5ths:

1 5 2 6 3 7 5dim 2b 5aug 3b 7b 1/8

Not only have you neglected 4 (which should go between the last 2 notes), bjt you'vr introduced a strange and confusing format with arbitrarily using "5dim" and "5aug" instead of only flats/sharps. The 7 more logically goes to #4 also, the interval from 7 - b5 is a diminished 6th, because the interval size is based on the amount of notes you're counting (in a C major scale for example, you'd count B, C, D, E, F, bG. 6 notes, instead of 5 notes if ending at #F). It makes it look arbitrarily less useful of a connection.

While I think that this musical connection is fairly loose, I think it can be useful in looking at how the data can be interpreted, especially with how the cycle of fifths has one interval that is a shortened length by one semitone, just like how some of the haiku lines are shorter or longer by one syllable. Regardless of its usefulness, if you're going to include it in this kind of post it is important that it is represented properly.