I understand your intent, it’s just not grammatically supportable.
As a rule, in the suttas we find saṅkhāra in the sense of “conditioned phenomena” quite rarely. It’s in the sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā and a few other places. Also fairly rare is saṅkhāra in the sense of “condition, cause, reason”, where it is listed along with other terms as a synonym (paccaya, etc.). Occasionally too we find it in the sense of “energy”, or as “processes” (of body and mind).
But overwhelmingly the most common sense is as “volition, creative force, intention, choice”, which is the sense in both the aggregates and dependent origination. In this passage, that’s what it means.
I’ve put a lot of time and effort into these things. May I suggest, as a learning exercise, break down some of my translations and look at why I’m rendering them the way I do, and anything that seems odd, ask me!
No, this is the standard meaning in the suttas. The basic sense of saṅkhāra is “an action well-done in order to secure an outcome”, in which sense it is also a “ritual”. This is the colloquial, pre-Buddhist sense.
The generalization to a philosophical term representing all conditioned phenomena is a specifically Buddhist innovation.
But this got me looking at the pre-Buddhist usages, so here’s a quick survey.
I couldn’t really say without knowing more. I think I understand where you’re coming from, and it can be a good practice to push back against prevailing usage to see what happens. If everyone just goes along, then we never learn anything new. But of course, if we’re basing an argument on the suttas, it has to reflect what they actually say.
Thanks for letting me know! 