Since my longer post seems to be caught in moderator purgatory I will rehash its results into this much smaller message. I apologize for the spamming.

I present a theorem whose thesis is obvious to many.

THESIS: All hashrates h' > h generate a revenue per unit of hash v' > v. 

Let us absurdly[1] assume that an optimal hashrate h exists where the average revenue for each hash in service is maximized. This will result from perpetually mining blocks of size q, is v. All larger hashrates h' > h will generate an average revenue per hash v' < v(effectively the conclusion of my paper) due to the higher orphan risk carried from having to mine blocks of size q' > q. Leading from Peter's model and my analysis, the origin of this balance lies in the fact that larger miners must somehow be forced to mine larger blocks which in turn carry a larger orphan risk. 

What happens if a large miner h' chooses not to mine his optimal block size q' in favor of a seemingly "sub-optimal" block size q?
Since he mines a block of identical size as the smaller miner, they will both carry identical orphan risks[2], and win identical amountsR+M(q) whenever they successfully mine a block. Since the larger miner can statistically expect to win h'/h more blocks than the smaller miner, they will each earn an identical revenue per unit of hash R+M(q)/h. 

This however directly contradicts the assumption that an optimal hashrate exists beyond which the revenue per unit of hash v' < vif  h' > h. 
Q.E.D 

This theorem in turn implies the following corollary:

COROLLARY: The marginal profit curve is a monotonically increasing of miner hashrate.

This simple theorem, suggested implicitly by Gmaxwell disproves any and all conclusions of my work. Most importantly, centralization pressures will always be present. 

Furthermore, 

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
[2] Orphan risks will actually favor the larger hashrate miner leading to greater revenues per unit of hash.

I thank the dev-list for its valuable time and exchange on the subject matter. I stand by for any further comments and questions.