Ok, I'll bite. I admit I find it perplexing that you find your method of typing accurate, and I'll mention what I find to be totally obvious but it seems to be something you don't factor in at all, or disregard as irrelevant.
I'm less bothered by the fact you might have bias, but more bothered by wondering WHY you find relying on sentence deconstruction, and a handful of posts at that, as giving you the ability to accurately determine type.
From where I stand, your method of 'Sentence 1 = Ne, Sentence 2 = Si, Sentence 3 = Se, Sentence 4 = Ni, Sentence 5 = Ne', and so on, is not holistic at all and strikes me very much like those who selectively take verses from the Bible and utilize them to 'prove' a point (which: doesn't work, because as most people know, you can find a different verse in the bible that often contradicts that first verse -- thus, taking single sentences/statements ignores any larger holistic context of the book - or going back to typing, the person as a WHOLE).
I haven't read enough of your commentary to know whether you have a good handle on functions (at least - as they're commonly understood) or not, but let's say you do have a good grasp of functions. Do you factor in contextual responses? Do you factor in the fact that someone might write in a certain way in certain topics or towards certain people or will write in a different way if it's a topic about something utterly different? Or, I think I've read you write somewhere that you believe everyone does use all functions to some degree. If this is so, then how could you possibly type someone on here using a handful of posts when it could just be a snapshot of a given day they are having, or as stated previously, a more intellectual topic vs jokey topic, vs emotional topic, vs playful topic, vs philosophical topic, and so on. They might very well be using Fi and Te and Ne and whatnot in a given post (per dissection of line by line) -- but how useful is that really? What if in the larger context they use Se and Fe a lot more? Why do you find sentence deconstruction useful towards encompassing the persons' type as a whole?
I'll grant you that there are trends in writing style -- that a random ESFP on here is generally -- overall - let's say, 75% of the time -- going to write very differently from an INTP. But you have to look with a wider lens imo.
All of this is why some (many?) of your typings just seem ludicrous.
There's probably more I could break down for you but this is one of the main issues I have seen. Again, it seems obvious to me, but then too, obviously you view things differently. (?)