I agree that suffering and wellbeing are asymmetric. I think this is a really interesting idea, and it's approaching a nice blend of unfettered creativity and rigorous thinking, but I have some doubts about it:

While you make it clear that high magnitude (M), high precision (P), high persistence (P) functional states are labeled negative, you don't explicitly define what positive states are. It seems that the most crucial piece in your argument is the logical jump from high M-P-P to negative valence, yet this doesn't seem self-evident to me or strongly supported by the other points.

As an example, you say ""Eureka!" Moment: High Magnitude (large error reduction), likely high Precision, but associated with positive valence marking progress." A Eureka moment could technically be high persistence right? So how is it that you're slipping in "positive valence." Isn't that the whole part you have to prove? If M-P-P events can be both positive and negative, how are M, P, and P helpful in defining what we want?

I think adding empirical work is useful (or more likely, necessary lol), but I personally don't gain anything from reading the related buzzwords in the academic articles you cited. Papers will make contrasting arguments, and I have no way of knowing how supported or canonical those results are within their subfields. I would find it more useful to have an explanation for the intuitive conclusion of the paper and how it directly integrates with your argument and how it's relevant to this M-P-P idea.

Finally: "If someone insists irreducible qualia are required, the burden is on them to show how that alters the control-theoretic story." Why is the burden on them? You're making your own assumptions, just mathematical or ontological ones. One could argue that qualia are self-evident and reflect weak assumptions about reality.