While the dimensions and port location are different it is still a fire box with a secondary hot box on top with secondary air introduced in the area of a port in the ceiling of the batch box roof. I have no doubt that with your scientific approach your variation will be more efficient.
The guy who came up with the Vortex Masonry Stove conceived of it on paper after studying many older masonry stoves and did only one revision after it was built. He wasn't an inveterate tester / improver.
His only real revision was a raising of the height of the upper box roof and found that improved certain of the burn parameters, exactly which one(s) I cannot recall.
I found his contention regarding the stove's alleged ability to slow the burn down, but still gassify the most interesting. He claims that the lack of cross flow over the burning mass, as found in rocket stoves, allows for this slow down. I find his so-called "dead end box" effect and port placement the most interest part of the stove.
However the design is still a double box, secondary fed ceiling port no matter what the semantics used; and I doubt that he was the first to employ it.
The introduction of secondary air on the Vortex while not as refined or as effective as your scientifically refined variation is still secondary air feeding an upper port.
I have no doubt that the Vortex Masonry Stove can be further refined with small dimensional changes with regard to the port size/shape and upper box format to make it that much more efficient.
His design in no way detracts from your own accomplishment where efficiency is concerned.