Fulgour, the Forum will at some stage be renamed to include discussions on alphabetic correspondences generally - but requires a wait until an upgrade is due ('small' changes otherwise take up additional administrative time from Solandia).
I would have thought that precisely discussing the Phoenician alphabet with regards to astrological considerations (whether zodiacal, planetary, or their interelation) is what is here both at issue and illustrative of your views.
As a first step - and unless there is another point I missed, such as integrally relating Tarot imagery prior to the 1st century CE - the alphabetic sequence and its possible correlations with either element, sign or planet appears to me to be a later Hebrew Yetzirahic consideration 're-applied' to the earlier Phoenician alphabet.
If K Barry is correct (in his book The Greek Qabalah), even the Hebrew planetary/zodiacal/elemental attributions arise from neo-pythagorean/gnostic ones, with Hebrew attributions deriving from these.
Fulgour has stated that 'the planetary attributions are, so far as I know, mine alone'.
With regards to the Marseille imagery and sequence, it would indeed be interesting to see how Fulgour presents each card's imagery in the light of planetary exaltations (and this does better belong in the Marseille Forum).
Herein are the more underpinning discussions as to the relationship between Phoenician and astrological/elemental attributions. I suspect that these are the hesitations/questions which le_pendu, kwaw and I share - even if we may have varying views on myriad points of detail.
Of course, having questions and hesitations is a way of requesting further details, and shows not disinterest, but rather its opposite: interest in furthering our (and others') reflections.
Not only the 'what' (which are listed), but the 'why' and the 'when' become, at least for some of us, important.
It may be, for example, that the basis for the attributions are not from the direction in which questions have been phrased (whether clearly or implicitly). It could be, for example, that Fulgour first looked at the (Marseille) imagery; then and independently of this considered Hebrew's (& Greek's and Roman's) 'parent' alphabet - in this case still being twenty-two; considered early forms of astrology (specifically, planetary exaltations); realised that the Hebrew/Phoenician letter attribution already fitted the Marseille sequence in ordinal fashion; and that further the exaltations of the planets in the signs, as attributed to the letters (and here is the 'sticking' point) as attributed by the later Sefer Yetzirah to Hebrew (allowing for variations in planetary attributions) were reflected in the imagery of the Marseille.
Some such sequence of events and insights require multiple avenues of clarifications.
Firstly, why have the Phoenician split into three in later Hebrew fashion - again, if it is because it has, like Hebrew, such an apparent structure, fine. I am personally willing to accept such an answer. It shows that even though it may not have been recognised until centuries later (when it was considered for Greek and Hebrew), it nonetheless had that aspect. After all, that the number 'e' was not understood or discovered at a particular time does not imply that it had no existence at that time.
...but why go to the Phoenician as opposed to Hebrew?