I'm quite fallible sometimes so if you catch a mistake let me know please!
These numbers do not look correct.
The digitized numbers, are you converting them from Luminance to quantum PPFD?
Common sense says that 4 or 5 µMoles/J is way too high. 2 would be very good. 5 is like printing your own photons.
I cannot see the formulas in the spreadsheet.
These are my formulas, and tested against values measured with a radiospectrometer
PPFD = ((lumens / 683) x (wavelength x 0.00836)) / CIE
Where CIE is the Photopic Luminous Efficacy, Relative Sensitivity Curve for the C.I.E. Standard Observer, which the spreadsheet labels SPD*luminosity
Converting to Photon Radiance (µMoles) to Luminance (lm/m²/sr) commonly called lumens.
Luminance = PPFD x CIE / (wavelength x 0.00836) x 683
Where I see the problem is with the digitized numbers being treated as Luminance. The lumens in an LED datasheet are Illuminance. But that not the real issue. The SPD is Irradiance which is radiometric not luminous. So it appears you are converting W/m² (irradiance) to moles/m²/s (photon radiance) thinking you are converting lm/m²/sr (luminance) to µMoles (radiance).
When converting radiometric watts to quantum µMoles (or vise versa) you only need to remove difference in photon energy due to wavelength. Luminous efficiency and photon energy are not relevant to PPFD.
Assuming the SPD is in watts, to convert the SPD numbers to PPFD the formula would be:
PPFD (µMoles) = watts x wavelength x 0.00836
I charted the measurements in Watts and Lumens from my radiospectrometer and the watts matched the SPD perfectly.