"What I mean is that if it's my plan to get a decent amount of bluffs that I probably have to be committed to x/raise flop then barrel off turn and river if I'm to commit a solid bluffing line."
Trying to be balanced in such a specific spot is simply torching EV.
I think you are quite stuck in a theoretical-paradigm to at least some degree, and I don't think / I know that that's not the most intelligent way to beat the micro stakes.
Let me post a quick video about this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exg0P-Ijr1s&list=PLq8DE8O_uiB3ViQxbhw1H8hlWHLfBd4jV&index=31
Villains simply don't care enough and realistically won't ever find out wether you are balanced in certain spots or not, for that they would need massive sample sizes on you AND they would need to analyze them in quite some depth.
To your other questions: I would barrel a hand OTT that simply has more equity - which mainly means a hand with one spade.
It's insane how much better a hand like J9o one spade would be here, so yeah hands like that.
To your other question: x/c is awkward because we simply don't have iniative - so even if we hit he might just check back etc. etc. - simply because we are a) OOP and b) don't have iniative - x/r kinda fixes those problems to some degree.
I disagree that trip barreling would make you money here - once he calls flop and calls turn he usually doesn't has a hand like JTs KQs anymore - he usually has Two pair plus - those hands are generally not looking to fold OTR.
That being said this would be a river where some parts of those hands could fold.
But here is the deal: If I don't see a spot as a !HOTSPOT! to bluff - I just won't bluff, basing my decisions on assumptions is never really something I want to do.
Basically like: "Yeah he might fold xyz - he might have already raised his KK and TT OTF - so we can discount those - he might perceive me to x/r a lot of spades which know got there".
I want to see a spot and instantly reckognize it as a hotspot e.g.: villain is super capped here - I look strong - he has tons of marginals.
This is not such a spot, he doesn't have tons of marginals, he is not uncapped, yeah we do look realatively strong that part is true.
To your last point: Well x/c will be a profitable play - it basically totally depends on villains strategy wether x/r or x/c is better - I personally don't mind either way and both will be +EV in a vacuum.
So to sum it up the biggest problem I see here are: We barrel in a spot villain is uncapped, we barrel in a spot villain has tons of good continues, we might EASILY be drawing literally stone dead, our outs are tainted / we don't have a lot of them, our blockers really aren't great, villains range is already somewhat defined from x/r OTF.
And this is probably the biggest problem I see: I feel like you feel kinda "forced" to have bluffs here for the sake of having bluffs, is that correct?
Basically: There is tons of misinformation out there a lot of it suggests that you need a somewhat GTOish, balanced approach to win at poker - most good players will tell you that that's just not true. Start worrying about balance and such if you hit the 200nlz streets.
If you don't want to take my word on that, look at MMAsherdog (one of the best 6max nl players) when he plays even 100nlz and how he thinks about it, how he plays there.
Or watch the video where sauce aka ben sulsky played 50nlz etc., I'm a great enemy of the overall "theory is the way to go-paradigm" and I'm certain that in the next 1-2 years people will dramatically shift away from it at the non-highstakes, or well actually the trend is already starting.
Ok there you go a little rant about that topic haha
One last point I wanted to adress: "It is precisely that I do think it is profitable that I was thinking about barrelling three streets" - think about why you think that, think about the things you are basing this assumption on and ask yourself honestly wether it's true or just you being assumptive about it, basically ask yourself wether you can really say that statement with high confidence.