Don't beat up on yourself too bad. You're gonna waste a ton more time, even once you figure out your panel on things like schematics, etc.
I labored on exactly the same issues. I started down the "I want a cheap, but functional panel" but ended up playing the math games and came to the exact same conclusion as you.
So here is the best suggestion I can offer.
Set down and figure out your "mission profile". Do it as near term and long term - If you think it might change (e.g. start out day vfr, but with flexibility to grow to night vfr, or IFR).
Next figure out your "starting" budget, allocate what you think you can afford for the phase 1 approach to a panel.
Now you can figure out if you budget best fits four different panel concepts. a) 6 pack - steam gauges; b) what I call "Medium glass" - the small form factor Dynon, BMA, etc - these have the advantage of letting you start with steam and "grow up" to glass; c) "Large glass" - these are the BMA's, the GRT's, the ACS's, etc; or d) "certified glass" - these are like the Chelton, the OP Technologies, the Garmin G600/G900X, etc. They are most costly, but highly more functional.
three pitfalls that I'll offer.
a) don't let yourself be talked into this concept of "light IFR". There is *no* such thing. It's sorta like being "half pregnant"
b) The value you put in a panel is directly proportional to the value of the cargo you carry
also read as you can't do IFR CHEAP (inexpensive yes, but not cheap).
c) there is alot going on right now with the FAA and it's look at the experimental marketplace. A trend is starting to emerg. TSO's, while you are not required to purchase a TSO'd device, you will be required to prove that a device meets a TSO where appropriate. Two recent items, IFR GPS's both non-waas, and Waas, and transponder encoders. The EFIS integrated encoders are starting to be looked at and not approved so factor into your plans accordingly.
Hope this helps,