I actually think Abrac is right, this is an issue that is worth exploring. Although I myself "know" that the RWS is a Golden Dawn deck, the similarities between it and the Thoth seem to make that clear, Waite was so tight lipped about the whole affair that that question is at the root of what study of the RWS entails.
Although, if I may, I think some of the attributions mentioned in your table are something of a stretch, the pillars of the Hierophant being one example, others make sense, and make me see the deck in a new light. Even when the deck does not go and blatantly make clear the attribution, I think that in those cases Waite followed the original Marseilles drawings, and did not go further.
One example of this is the Hanged Man, which in the Thoth is a
very watery card (his head is under water). In the RWS, on the other hand, there is no water, even though his shirt seems a peculiar color, and may represent the watery element. Again, the fact that he did not embellish these can be attributed to his vows of silence working in the very fiber of the deck itself.
As to the Moon, I think the Pisces attribution is made clear by the lobster in the water (also, water) rather than the dog and jackal. The Cross on Judgment could be a facsimile of the Rosy Cross, where, as Book T does not attribute this card to any astrological attribution, but to Fire and Spirit, this could be the Star of David that represents Spirit, the melding together of all the forces, just above Earth. In essence, this could be the lava that mixes everything up. The fact that Waite did not use the Rosy Cross could be, again, because of his silence.
The Wheel of Fortune is especially interesting, as, in Liber Tav (although a Thelema book), it is the card around which everything revolves.
http://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib400.html
The Jupiter attribution makes sense here even in the lowest way of thinking, King of the Gods, although, in the card itself, I fail to see any real clue to any Jupitarian influence.
Although I think that, all in all, Waite was far less revolutionary with his Majors than he was about the Minors, which really are new. In Waite's Majors I see much Marseilles influence, which could have superseded any new material he may have wished to infuse them with.
I don't remember who said this, but when the new Waite book came out with the pictures (I don't remember the name of it) it was mentioned (perhaps by Mary) that it would finally be apparent whether the RWS is a Kabbalistic deck. Now, I don't have the book, but did it shine new light on the attributions?