The only reason you keep going on about this is that you want to keep your "naive modalism" example intact, which actually doesn't fit the rule.
Please, please.. stop lying outright.
Trying to parse your absurd categories and definitions has nothing to do with the naive modalism discussion of some 2nd century ECWs who Daniel Wallace said broke the rule. (The ever-changing rules.)
Instead .. start answering the questions.
You can start with why Holy Spirit is a proper name and Paraclete is not.
Matthew 28:19 (AV)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Do you really think that is a command to baptize in the name of Jehovah, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?
Holy Ghost is NOT a name, obviously.
1 John 5:7 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And no names there, either.
John 15:26 (AV)
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father,
even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
The grammar is built around the masculine Comforter.
Or would you rather explain your absurdities around
Lord Jesus Christ
Saviour Jesus Christ
Son of God
Some of which you say are epithets, some are not, but you really do not know which ones, and you are trying to mind-read the authors.
This is grammar? This is a rule?
You are attacking the Holiness of God and Christ with these types of absurdities.