Without spending too much time thinking about that (for one thing, the image is not quite clear to me), I'll say that almost anything can be made to work. The questions to ask are:
1) how much work will it take to do it,
2) how good is it likely to be, and
3) will the resulting instrument be useful for the repertoire you want to play on it?
Almost twenty years ago I sat on an acoustics panel discussion with Greg Byers, among others. He put forth an argument that is well known in some circles, although I can't remember who originated the idea. Basically it says that you can reduce the set of design features to a point on a plane; a seven-fan strutted top represents a certain point, while a nine-fan strut top will be in a slightly different location, Bouchet braces are further over and lattice braces someplace else. Given this distribution you can represent the fitness of the design for it's purpose as a height above the plane. This yields a topographical map, with hills and valleys of different designs that work more or less well.
If you start out at random with some design you'll probably be somewhere on the slope of a hill; the guitar you make will probably not be the worst one ever down in a deep valley, but you're unlikely to be at the top of a hill either. Starting from there you can make small changes in the design or construction, which will represent slightly different points on the plane, and that will move you up hill (you hope). With luck and perseverance you can work your way to the top of the hill; the best guitar that can be made using that basic design and material.
The problem is that if you start out at some random point it's hard to know know whether the hill you're on is the tallest one. You might spend decades making improvements and reach the top, only to find that some other hill is a lot taller. It's possible that the bracing scheme you are thinking of would be better than anything else out there, but you can't know that for sure until you've put in a lot of time and effort.
In his case, Greg chose to stay on the hill we know; the more or less 'standard' Torres style guitar. As with climbing real mountains every foot you go higher gets a bit harder to climb, but at least you know where the top is. I've been a bit more adventurous, with some experiments working out better than others. Keep in mind that 'fitness' includes a lot of things, such as basic timbre, power, ease of playing, breadth of tone, and so on. It's not too hard to think of things that improve one or another aspect of the guitar: the current effort seems to be all about getting more power, and people have had some success at that. Whether the resulting instruments are better fit for the job of playing the music we love is debated. Musical taste changes, of course, as do the needs of players, and composers work with the sounds that are available, so that new instruments with different timbres can open up new possibilities for the music. It's a moving target.
In the end it's very hard to come up with something that will be generally accepted as 'better'. Literally thousands of man-years of effort have gone into refining the 'standard' designs. As David Pye said, trying to come up with a big improvement starting from scratch is in effect saying that all of the designers that came before were idiots. Not likely.