Don't want to dart in and muddy the waters, but...

I don't necessarily agree that redundancy is bad. We often use a structural ridge and a "seated rafter" as DL terms it. In that case both the plate and the ridge are sharing the load and that is usually a good thing so you don't need a huge ridge. As it is to my eye, your ridge looks a bit undersized. Also in this condition, you eliminate lateral loading by the rafter feet which helps keep connections simpler between ties and posts, etc. and keeps the plates from having to resist overturning or bending at their midspan.

It's a shame you can't get your overhang out of the length of your pieces. In my experience rafter tails take a lot more work and a lot stronger connection than you would imagine to meet design loads.

As you mentioned, though, overhangs with bastard hips like this get really funky trying to keep the fascia line level. When I design them I usually work from the fascia line and then try to work out plate heights, etc. you will often need to offset the hip to keep the backing depths equal on either side and sometimes you need to raise the plate on the steep side of the roof so the jacks have something to bear on since they are gaining altitude so much faster than the shallow jacks.

Interesting project.