I believe that this is incorrect. Computer memory is linear, so it is one-dimensional. Memory addressing can be done either directly or through pointers to that memory location.
In your model for a pixel based editor is also incorrect. It is a 3-dimensional model. We know this because if we duplicate the base layer, the file size increases significantly as all the changes made to additional pixel layers are stored. This is why adjustment layers and layer masks are used as these take up significantly less storage space. This discounts the file overhead and any efficiencies of lossless compression the software may apply to the additional layer(s).
This screen shot from Photoshop shows the three-dimensional aspect. Each of the layers, in your parlance, is two-dimensional and there is a stack of 9 layers, so the data is really 3D.
The technical aspects don't really matter as the high level language hides those details from the programmer. My understanding is that the early versions of Photoshop were written in Pascal but the main code base was migrated to C++ many years ago. If someone has more up to date information, I would be interested in understand this. If I remember my C / C++ programming (the last time I used those languages was probably 30 years ago), pointers were much faster than matrices.
This is also not quite correct. The parametric editor does store the parameters used for each edit. In a pixel based editor each layer of the edit is also stored. That way when a file is opened each layer that has been worked on is exactly the same as when the edit was done. If a non-destructive workflow is used; adjustment layers, layer masks and SmartObjects, then the "Background Layer" does not change.
The fundamental difference between a parametric editor and a pixel based editor is that the former stores instructions on how to manipulate the data and the latter stores a stack of pixels and a stack of masks that impact the pixels below the mask.
Please don't. It is incorrect and clearly shows you do not understand how the different types of editors perform. As before, be forewarned, we may remove the diagram and add a disclaimer telling readers why this was done.
If this is good enough for you, then why would you do anything else. For some of us a parametric editor does not offer the control we need to turn out the images we want.
For many photographers the raw convertor with its parametric editor is the start of the editing process, not the end.