Since the year 2000, I have been analyzing the Iliad and the Odyssey in order to provide a better solution to the Homeric Question. At no point in time did I lose the hope of delivering a better theory as compared to the current status among scholars. However, I must admit, my theory changed entirely since then. It went from a fringe theory that claimed a proto-Celtic origin of the Homeric texts, to a sophisticated theory that unites Oral Theory, Analysis and Unitarianism, and that is very compatible with the current scholarly status of the Homeric Question.
My analysis of the Iliad consisted of separating the text into a list of indivisible passages and lists of oral characteristics that either belonged to a certain role or to a certain oral tradition. I did this effort twice, given that my insight in the roles and oral traditions had grown considerably at the end of the first analysis. In particular, I had to admit that many passages clearly had the characteristics of more than one role or oral tradition.
I eventually discovered five distinct oral traditions in the Iliad of the legendary Homer: