Scottsins - Have you actually ever tried a case? Because you write about this real life case as though it were a law exam question.
Nobody who has ever tried a Negligence case would make this statement:
"If they went to trial strictly on the negligence theory, this testimony would likely not even being allowed in the guilt/innocence phase as it is not relevant to any fact question asked of the jury. If it was allowed there is no place in the jury instructions for any of that to be considered. Again, subjective vs objective."
You apparently have no idea how a subjective vs. objective standard is applied. The full background setting facts of the incident are always relevant in a negligence case - always.
Intent is relevant to a charge of intentional misconduct, reckless misconduct and negligence misconduct. "Intent" does not equal "intentional." Your equating the two is FLAT OUT WRONG (using your emphasis).
Let's use a simple example. A police officer discharges his weapon in the direction of a criminal suspect in a public place and kills an innocent bystander.
Whether he can be charged with an Intentional killing, a Reckless killing, or Negligent killing heavily turns upon his "Intent."
Officer:
(1) "He was disrespecting me by running away and so it was my intent to execute him." supports intentional crime
(2) "I thought he might get away, and it was my intent to stop that from happening." supports recklessness crime
(3) "It appeared he was about to strike a woman, and it was my intent to prevent him from doing so." could support negligence crime, as you are risking much greater injury than you are seeking to prevent.
The intent of the accused is always relevant and it is not the equivalent of "intentional," and you have no idea of what you are talking about. You made numerous other errors, but the above is the most pertinent to the discussion.