Collapsed for migration out of topic
I take it you mean the four great bhūtā and gross material food here?
SN 22.82, looks like. In so much as lumpy food would be form derived from the external four great dynamics, I would take the positing of āhāra as source of rūpa at SN 22.56/SN 22.57 to indicate a definition of source that subsumes the definition at SN 22.82. The Puttamaṃsa Sutta @ SN 12.63 corroborates this in the section on lumpy food:
When the nutriment edible food is fully understood, lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure is fully understood.
Kabaḷīkāre, bhikkhave, āhāre pariññāte pañca kāmaguṇiko rāgo pariññāto hoti.
Indeed. In addition to working out whether the avijja-rooted DO and nāmarūpa-rooted DO differ in terms of arising and persistence (and perhaps vitakka vs vicāra), I’m also trying to work out whether manomaya (rūpaloka) kāya might be ‘derived’ in parallel with oḷārika (kāmaloka) kāya from the ‘first principles’ of DO… and I’m quickly getting in over my head.
There is the distinction in MN 28 between internal and external elements. We might distinguish between rūpaloka and kāmaloka like this in the DO chain, where the rūpa of nāmarūpa, when external, conditions the six external bases and vice versa.
(And another visual aid 
):
(and perhaps to round out the theory)
Summary
The key supposition in this synthesis is a resolution to the question raised by @Gabriel in “Ayatana vs Indriya - synonyms?” with a “no”; that a given āyatana, whether external or internal, functions as the domain in which the appropriate indriya may contact with for the arising of the corresponding indriya’s viññāṇa.
Eg MN 148, for the case of non-kāma:
Kāy[indriya]ñca paṭicca
phoṭṭhabbe[kāyāyatana] ca uppajjati kāyaviññāṇaṃ, tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso.
Dependent on the [faculty of] body and
tangibles[the domain of body], body-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact.