Sorry, I am not very sensitive to the philosophy, I don’t see how your mapping is different from mine.
If you like, Parinibbāna is 3 forever but never going back to 2. Which is as good as 4, but if there’s some strong philosophical reason for parinibbāna not to be in 4, I don’t mind.
In the spirit of what Ven. @Vaddha pointed out here: Brahmavihārā are dukkhā - #25 by Vaddha One can say that the aggregates are always stuck at 2. It can at most not appear in 2, which then I map it to 3.
In terms of the Buddha’s classification of the world being the 6 senses, then only 2 is actually the all, the world. And 1, 3 and 4 are just figments of our imagination. 3 has to be seen in 2 as the non-arising of anything anymore. Strictly speaking also, since mind objects are included in the world, 1, 3, and 4 being mind objects of concepts are also in the world. It gets a bit convoluted. I just hope that separating it like this can be a bit more clear on how we talk about things.
I suspect you keep on mapping what I said in 2 to be 1 whenever I use the word “exist” and you also put self in 2, so you mapping 5 aggregates and self to be empty, like foam, etc is sharing characteristics of 2. But I would map what I said of the 5 aggregates to be in 2, and then the (ultimate) self which is not existent belongs in 4, thus cannot share any characteristics with the 5 aggregates (other than not self), as it is not found. 5 aggregates are found in the sense of experience is, 6 sense contacts are. But I can see you’re going to see I am saying aggregates are in 1 again. 
Anyway, with this framework, maybe we can have less misunderstandings between us.