Alright, so this is how I see your problem:
1. You're focusing too much on the details/common explanations of the functions, rather than really understanding what the functions are at the heart.
2. In a similar way, you're not looking into yourself and identifying your CORE traits. Yeah, we all use these functions sometimes but there's a difference in frequency.
For example, I do the same routine every day too, but there's no way in hell I'm a strong Si user. To me Si, like Ni is evaluative. It understands the world through categorising everything, often into norms and traditions. I do the same thing again and again because it's comfortable and I get enough change and stimulation within my own comfort zone. It may look Si, but it's not. The motivations are different. You seem the same way to me. Thy only Si-looking thing you do is do the same thing over and over again, you don't identify with the other traits. Why would Si be a top function for you then? It just seems like you're making too much out of an unreliable test score.
To illustrate the same point with another function, just because you like depth over width does not mean you don't use Ne. Here's how Ne works, I interact with something and automatically, my mind thinks about things loosely related to it. For example, I look at a kimono and I think about a temple I've visited in Japan, which then makes me think about the sakura that was there, then I think of an anime character called 'Sakura'... and so on.
This is a very casual example of Ne, here's a more intellectual one: someone reads about the theoretical structure of possible worlds and notices that it shares a lot of similarities with the structure a 4 dimensionalist theory of time. They notice that this parallel is not perfect however because one theory is widely accepted when the other is not, so they start looking out for differences. Maybe it's because we don't experience possible worlds, but we experience the past. However we realise that mere experience should not justify or falsify a theory on possibility, so that can't be it (I'm making arguments up on the fly lol, it's just an example anyway). Anyways, the point is that we're jumping from one idea to another through inductive means, in both cases. That's the core of Ne.
Ni on the other hand, as I understand it, works like this: the Ni user is faced with a problem. As soon as the problem is asked, she as an idea of what the answer has to be, given the nature and the context of the question. Let me try and explain this through analogy. We're doing a jig-saw puzzle and there's a specific piece we need to find. We know what the pieces around it look like, so we know vaguely what sort of colours and patterns this piece has, we also know what shape the left side of the piece is, because we have the piece to the left of it. We dig our way through the remaining pieces, hoping to find one with these qualities, and in the process, a lot of pieces are rejected because they don't meet the criteria. When we finally get to that piece, we don't get a sense of surprise, because we knew all along what that piece had to look like. The answer was there all along, we just needed to find it. Ni always has a function. There's a point to the answer and a context in which the answer has to fit in.
Phew, OK. So when someone says that Ne is wide and Ni is deep, that's quite a loose way of speaking, really. As an Ne user, I can get very, very deep into a question, I'm just doing it in a different way to the Ni user. I am constantly entertaining new possible solutions and at the same time, I'm entertaining possible counterarguments to these solutions, screening some of them out. Ni users can also be motivated to engage in a whole bunch of different things. Is it true that Ne users have width whereas Ni users have depth? Well, maybe if we used our functions in a very simple sense. It's definitely true that I can jump all over the place, covering a million ideas in one sweep. However, it is certainly not necessarily true. Therefore, when you're asking yourself if you use Ne, you can't just reject the idea because you prefer depth to width.
Here's the moral of the story - some functions can look like other ones from a behaviorist POV, but they're not the same thing. Furthermore, the same function can look different in different people or in different situations, but it's still the same function. You need to really look deeper into the functions and ask which one of them you use CONSTANTLY. I for example, can never turn Ne off, to the point that it actually affects my sleep. It's ideas bouncing off each other 24 hours a day. Looking at your functions thoroughly should be a much better indication of your type than an explanation on some website. Someone here said that INTP's don't like revisiting questions for example, but I disagree with that. I think a lot of them may do this, but I don't see how it's Ti + Ne. IMO anyway it's more likely that many INTP's are a certain enneagram type for example and that explains this behavior.
I know I ranted a lot, but let me make one last point. The one constant trait I see from you is doubt, and a willingness to revisit problems. I think being enneagram 6-9-something definitely explains that. The 6 brings the doubt, the 9 brings the openness. I don't see why you couldn't be an INTP with this enneagram type. You would look different from a lot of other INTP's, but your core motivations (specific to the INTP anyway) will be the same.
IMO, your biggest sign should be Ti + Fe. This is a combination that some other posters have picked up from your own descriptions and I agree with them. Ne Ti Fe would make you an ENTP though, which isn't even on your list lol. I dunno, work with the functions.
Just food for thought. Hope I helped.
PS. I wrote a fucking essay 0.o I never do this on forums lol.
