This is good. Ne is very much comparing external patterns and Ni compares reality (Te or Fe or Se) with an internal pattern.
It leaves out, however, the qualitative differences between Ne and Ni: Ne sees its external patterns in terms of internal Si standards. Ne sees the Si box, and yearns to go outside of it (thus it is external). Ni generates its internal standards based on observed Se experiences: it tries to find which "box" best explains the Se observations.
Another side effect is that because Ne sees things in Si standards, the Ne patterns are remarkably static, and conversely the Ni patterns based on Se are remarkably dynamic.
It might be simplistically described as Ne looks for correlation while Ni looks for causation.
This doesn't mean that Ni is somehow "better" (it can get the cause wrong), but that it's one of the points where Ne and Ni have crosstalk. Ne points out the correlations that Ni tends to dismiss because they lack any context of cause and effect, while Ni points out the cause and effect that Ne tends to dismiss because there is no established pattern to support it.
This is also why Ni will seem very mysterious to non-Ni types: even the Ne types are unconsciously bound to the notion that a pattern needs to be established and certain in order to accept the conclusions it provides, so the Ni observation based on patterns of cause-and-effect seems out of the blue, and they're even more amazing when they're right (betting against the odds and winning).