What I often find lacking from your ratings are levels of Bad. ★ is so rare that I don't even know a single time you've given it. That leaves ★★ as the catch all for any film that doesn't work, and for me there's a major difference between a disappointment, a failure, an embarrassment and something that's just offensive.
I plan on being slightly more strict/liberal with the new ratings system. I often feel like I end up throwing everything in either 2.5 or 3 right now, when really those should be spread into 2, 3, and 4 more often. So films at the top of my current 3 will go to 4, and films at the bottom of 2.5 will go to 2. Meanwhile, I will use 1 star more liberally, and I also often felt like I was being way too easy on films I "Didn't Like" by classifying them as 2.5 (average). 2.5 should not be average, and often they are films I didn't like.
We'll see how this goes. In all honestly, the rating itself means less than how it's described. For instance, I believe you are right in saying I rated some 3 star, okay, while others are 3 star, very good (and even others as 3 star, good). So in that instance, you get a sense how I liked it based on the descriptor, not on the star rating. This does over-simplify things, but I think in the long run it will be easier for both me and anyone who reads my reviews.
As for my 1 star films, here is what I have according to Letterboxd, which is likely pretty accurate, while also me probably being a little too harsh on a couple of them. But looking through this list, they are films I pretty well hate.
https://letterboxd.com/corndogchats/films/ratings/rated/1/