It´s not strictly formally valid , but, it can be made so.
The little details notwithstanding, yes, your argument is also valid.
Now, all that is needed is to know what is the support for the mains premises.
I agree the formalism may be improved.
I truly hope everybody understands my point. I do not want to make a valid argument against God, nor to find a specific weakness in WLC's argument. I wanted however to prove it wrong, so I built my 1'...5' argument. If somebody considers sound WLC's Ontological argument, they must consider my argument also to be sound, since if follows exactly the same line of reasoning. Therefore, the reasoning can't be sound.
If you have 2 arguments with contradictory conclusions, at least one must have a false conclusion, but, it does not follow that both are unsound.
In fact, if we hold to the law of excluded middle it is the case that either p or not p.
As I mentioned, what we need is to know the support for the main premises, of your argument.
