first, remember, I am a Grinch, so such a plan design sounds like something I could dream about
you might want to check what the IRS said just a few months ago. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/discriminatory-plan-designs-using-short-service this is just the last portion of the comments. Almost word for word the situation you are describing! Plans may discriminate even though they allocate a larger percentage of compensation to NHCEs. With this design, NHCEs, on average, may seem to receive a misleadingly large accrual or allocation level. For example, an NHCE participant with $200 of annual compensation may receive a profit sharing allocation of $200 (a benefit equal to 100% of compensation), while an HCE with compensation of $200,000 may receive a benefit of only 25% of compensation or $50,000. Although these designs may allow the plan to satisfy the vesting or numeric general tests for nondiscrimination and the associated regulations, they don’t satisfy Treas. Reg. Section 1.401(a)(4)-1©(2), which requires that the provisions of Sections 1.401(a)(4)-1 through 1.401(a)(4)-13 be reasonably interpreted to prevent discrimination in favor of HCEs. Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 01-Apr-2016
as the IRS says, yes, through the formulas and everything else giving a low paid NHCE 100% of comp 'works'
it violates a reasonable interpretation to prevent HCEs from favored treatment.
I think the killer is your opening statement
"I am designing a new..."