Well Jon @jongarvey that gives me a lot to dig my teeth into, assuming I can find the source material for the most promising on the list. I did notice in your list that S. Postell claimed that most critical scholars see them as conclusions, as did Wiseman.
Now I know you are a big fan of Middleton, and it seems like he is on the side of introductions on practical grounds- that is, they all “work” as introductions but not conclusions. So then I take it that if he could be shown another way that they would all “work” smoothly he would be amenable to considering it?
I ask because the view I lay out in Early Genesis is that they start as conclusions, but when two-sided tablets come along the narrative is put on one side and the genealogy is put on the other, with the colophon on the edge of the tablet placed in the middle. This format aligns well with the structure of Ruth though the genealogy there is very short. Later on, something else happens to make a soup of too-rigid an application of the Wiseman Hypothesis as described here…