I don't know what created the initial fault. The fault was in the double lookup itself. In fixing your block, I deleted your existing double lookup and replaced it as yours edited to the same settings did not produce the desired effect.
As an aside, your comments about your experience seem defensive in nature. In the attempt to help I may relay whatever information I think might be helpful. Obviously me stating information that you already know is in no way irritating or offensive unless you choose to take it that way.
Here are a couple other potentially helpful ideas (that you might already know). When expressing a range of values in the lookup table, you can use a bracket on one side of the range and a parenthesis on the other. The bracket will make the range include the value on that side and the parenthesis will exclude the value on its side. Although it doesn't really apply to this block due to the increment value on the rotation. E.g. you can have one range be [0-90) and the next be [90-180), etc... rather than [0-90] and [91-180]. You will then include all the potential values between 90 and 91. You can also have more than one range on a single line of the lookup table. E.g. you can have [0,90),[270,359.99999] rather than separating those two ranges onto two different rows.
