So other people are paying serious attention to this already?

To explain the situation I have to describe the sociology of theoretical attention to Koide's relation. Koide first discovered it in a model 30 years ago. Dozens of people have written papers about it. But as Lubos mentioned, the relation "shouldn't" be as accurate as it is, because of RG flow (which is why Lubos dismisses it as a coincidence). A much smaller number of papers have been written about the behavior of Koide relations under RG flow. Sumino's papers are the only ones describing a mechanism capable of making the Koide relation exact, and they haven't received much attention.

Alejandro's generalization of the Koide relation was found in a theoretical milieu where the RG issue hasn't been discussed very much. The bare facts are a set of numbers, the fermion masses. The people looking for Koide-type relations have included mainstream physicists, "alternative" physicists, and ex-physicists. (Alejandro is in the last category; he has a physics PhD, but works in IT now, but participates vigorously in these online discussions.) The mainstream theorists who have in recent years proposed extended Koide relations do sometimes consider how they would be affected by RG flow, but it's a rather peremptory discussion, and you don't even get that much from the others.

So I'm the only one publicly talking about "Rivero + Sumino", but who knows what's going on in Germany, Japan, and elsewhere. There are a few things which might inhibit consideration of Alejandro's paper: it involves an unfamiliar parametrization of the Koide relation, and it may sound odd to have quarks from different weak doublets in such a relationship. However, the paper actually describes a chain of Koide relations encompassing all the quark masses... Anyway, without going into the details, the relationships he found are a little peculiar from the vantage of theoretical expectations, which is an extra issue on top of the RG issue for physicists not already involved in these investigations; but in my opinion these peculiarities are actually mighty clues to the cause of the relationship.

If I ever do manage to make a Rivero-Sumino model, getting on the arxiv won't be a problem. The challenge is just to make the model.

you are coming off (to me) as evasive on this subject, which is why I'm trying so hard to nail down your actual position.

My actual position is that green exists and that it does not exist in standard physical ontology. Particles in standard physical ontology are not green, and nothing made out of them would be green. Is that clear?

One of your propositions talks about explaining "whatever it is that causes people to talk about qualia". The other talks about explaining "the experience of the color green". In both cases we talk around the actual existence of colors in an unacceptable way - the first one focuses on words, the second one focuses on "experience of green", which can provide an opportunity to deny that green per se exists, as seen in the quote produced by Automaton.