Do you know if the quota updates between rounds?
I do not believe in this method that was the intent but perhaps there is something more slick that could be done incorporating the ideas of Sequentially Shrinking Quota.
The RRV reweighting scheme doesn't decrease the total number of votes by a quota each time, so it could change.
The RRV system has more issues than that as is pointed out in the Single distributed vote page. So the potential system here is a way to combine the changing quota idea in Sequentially Shrinking Quota, the balanced reweighting from Single distributed vote and the selection from Sequential Monroe. It may not be possible but if I find some time it might be straight forward. The issue with Sequentially Shrinking Quota was always the calculation of quota size but reweighting gives some insight there.
My initial reaction was that this system would discourage the use of the middle of the range, because if you give some points to a candidate but are not in the quota, then you pay for that candidate but don't contribute to their election.
As I pointed out in my first post a mismatch between selection and exhaustion/allocation is likely to cause strategic vulnerabilities. The vote management things you highlight could sink the system. However, there are many strategies people can use and it remains unclear (at least to me) how their effectiveness balances out. A weak exploit which is easy and obvious may be better or worse than a strong but rare exploit. These are things we cannot really simulate. Things like vote management require a group effort and that relies on the organizational abilities and cohesiveness of factions. I suspect the worst exploits are those which are obvious to a single voter and unlikely to back fire.
Independent of if it is viable in the real world it would be a great extension of the field to have a system like the one I propose. It is good to compare and contrast.