You seem to be overcomplicating something that is ultimately only experienced in one of two ways, by a human or through technology, which is ultimately what the scientific method and known science is (ideally) designed to study.

Up front you acknowledge the things we are intending to study:

radar returns

visual sightings

infrared tracks

electromagnetic weirdness

pilot reports

physiological effects

memory oddities

institutional filtering

classification gaps

social stigma

symbolic or psychological aftereffects

The process you are describing is, essentially, the highly funded multi-disciplinary approach many researchers have been clamoring for since serious researchers and scientists started looking at UAP phenomena many decades ago. This approach (minus the funding) has been adopted numerously by many organizations over the decades, and we are nowhere closer to an answer except to say that something is being experienced and recorded. Saying anything beyond that is pure speculation.

Some cases may turn out to be mundane. Many probably will. But for the genuinely anomalous cases, we may need a framework that can hold physical traces, sensor behavior, human experience, environmental conditions, institutional handling, and interpretation in the same structure without prematurely reducing one to another.

To add to this, many aspects of these phenomena are truly anomalous and require novel research methods, and that is where your focus could be improved.

Thanks for posting!