Thanks. I was thrown off by what you meant by "per Equity employee" but I am ok with it now, subject to a few actual or potential nitpicks. Regarding who gets what, you are only wrong at the margins. An actor who gets extra contractual pay (for covering other roles, performing those roles, performing other assigned duties, etc) would get the raise. Also, it is not uncommon for someone making more than the minimum (and that can be many people) to have a provision in the contract rider giving them the same or a proportionate raise). The former certainly is within the scope of your rounding, the latter may not be. A couple of other nitpicks: a "star" today is likely making considerably more than the amount you suggest, and a show with that many actors (plus, at that size cast, likely an orchestra as well) grossing $800k is going to be a big ol' financial flop. Which brings me to another point: most shows are not doing well, and the contract on the table has to look at the viability of shows other than the ones that have beaten the odds.
I don't have a dog in this race, and I'm not sure I have enough of a basis to judge where the fairness balance lies. But also remember that the additional cost of each employee beyond pay and health insurance can be (based on old numbers) close to half again as much more, and each cast member also represents a cost for other folks, usually in other unions, who also want fair pay. I am not particularly on the League's side in this, but closed shows may save producers money but they don't earn actors (or the rest of the company) a nickel. My point being that I am not questioning your take, but these things are complicated which is why they usually get resolved in the middle of the night, as both of these did.