I think you might have misunderstood the voting mechanism. Jeff replies to questions about this here Paper referenced in A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence - #4 by jhawkins The disambiguation is achieved in the cortical column not at a level above the cortical column.
The major difference I see between On Intelligence and current work is that On Intelligence assumed active prediction and HTM implements passive prediction (predictive state of dendrite, no predictive output). This is a radical change
Most of your review is a presentation of your own idea. I would separate out the proposed extension to TBT from the review and post as two separate threads.
In part 2/3 the major issue I see is an assumption that intelligence can be amoral. That is not reasonable because any agent that acts will have moral consequences. If the agent does not “care” that does not make the actions amoral. If the agent has no understanding of suffering then it will not consider suffering and act in ways we judge as immoral. If the agent does understand suffering then it will have learned that from a particular community or individual i.e. it will be morally biased. Part 2 is irresponsible in this regard as it encourages AI researchers to continue research without taking moral and political responsibility for their work. It also ignores the huge amount of existing literature on the alignment problem. It reads like an initial opinion rather than a deep reflection taking into account contemporary research in the field.