If an individual payer wants to attempt a double-spend, he doesn't have enough PoW by himself to accomplish it.
This is plain nonsense. Of course an individual payer can have a majority of PoW, that's how double spends exist in the first place.
What the fuck can't you comprehend from above?
I've given you a reference to a math proof about the inability to asses confirmation in your design. Lets see your rebuttal.
Further, I've yet to hear why any given attacker can't trivially circumvent your censorship prevention by creating a majority of 'provider' nodes.
Please try and be civil here, I am trying to help you.