Julz, I took a step back from the naming argument and proposed a simple way to identify the significance of digits. Some people identify with words, others with images. Splitting it up into 2/3/3 is a good idea because 1) we only have 8 digits, not 9 and 2) we are used to 2 digits after the decimal.
I agree with you that this spacing would conflict with the official names on the positions, but we don't need to call them by official names. After all, no one says "That $9.99 book costs 9 dollars, 9 decidollars and 9 centidollars.
We call the first two bitcents, which would be easily accepted.
We call the last three satoshi
We just need to create a name for the middle three.
Yeah.. I know I kind of ignored your statement "Notice I stayed away from any naming references."
Really.. I think the public will have enough trouble with 'satoshi' not being SI let alone adding another strange one in the mix.
Also - there's the possibility of division of BTC to further than 8 decimal places in future - at which point you'd have to create yet another non SI unit.
I guess it's a novel approach.. but I don't think it makes the maths any easier!