It's not a matter of over or under-selling it. It's that your answers are sufficient to tell me that you don't know enough about the subject for it to be likely that you've made a worthwhile contribution. You write, for instance that your model "gives physical meaning to the quantum numbers used in representing the orbitals". Well, there's no mystery whatsoever about what their meaning is, and hasn't been since the 1920's. I'd expect any undergraduate student in physical chemistry or chemical physics to be able to explain it on an exam.
This tells me that either your knowledge of basic QM is lacking and/or your model isn't quantum mechanical. If it's not quantum mechanical, it doesn't work unless you invented some hitherto-unknown force of nature. If it's only semiclassical, I'd have expected you to say something about how it differs from existing semiclassical models (the few which exist). But you can't say anything about orbitals using a semiclassical model. Orbitals are a purely quantum mechanical description. (Although a quantum mechanical description does not require orbitals. In one sense, they simply don't exist in reality)
I don't see what the issue is with making them 'seeable'. There's quite a lot of visualization software for orbitals out there. Just look in any recent issue of, say, JACS or J Phys Chem and you'll find pictures of orbitals.
Quantum mechanics (without which you don't have orbitals to begin with), already explains all of what you purport to explain, and you didn't say anything about how your model relates to it. That indicates you're not acquainted with what's already known, which means you're not likely to be contributing anything to the existing knowledge.
Bottom line is that you don't need to 'sell' it in terms of telling me the wonderful things your model purports to do. You need to convince me you know the subject. Even if your model doesn't use quantum mechanics, I would still expect you to know how the QM description works and immediately be prepared to explain how you're justified in not using it. If your model is trivial or fundamentally flawed, then there's nothing constructive I could say, short of 'learn the subject'. And I certainly don't have time or energy to be anyone's personal tutor.
I'm a quantum chemist, I've got a whole office full of books on orbitals and related topics, and there are hundreds of other quantum chemists in the world. I don't think any of us could condense everything you need to know about orbitals to a single A4. Or a 60 volume book for that matter. And there is a 60-volume book on the topic: "Advances in quantum chemistry".
