Electronic – Best order for PCB power planes

I think you're on the right path, a couple of notes,

1) With a signal trace between two planes, the return current will split between the two planes, even if one of the planes is split. The return current cannot "see the future" and decide ahead of time which plane to return on. It will return above and below the trace until it sees the split at which point is says "oh crap!" and pays you back by possibly causing you to fail FCC testing. So you want to avoid running traces over plane splits even if another adjacent plane is not split. You can deal with splits with capacitors and such but this type of solution is less than ideal. I'd focus on always avoiding running a trace over a plane split on an adjacent plane.

2) Wide return paths on DC signals don't really matter.

3) You asked about two signal layers sharing the same plane. Usually, this is not a big deal if done properly. What many people do is use one of the layers as a "horizontal" signal layer and the other as a "vertical" signal layer so the return currents are orthogonal to each other. It is very common to route two signal layers for each plane, and use this horizontal/vertical technique. The most important thing to remember is to not change reference planes. Your setup could be a little tricky because going from the bottom layer to the 4th layer adds another return plane. More typical 6 layer boards are

1)ASignalHor 2)GND 3)ASignalVer 4)BSignalHor 5)POWER 6)BSignalVer

If you need smaller additional planes, like under the micro, these would usually be placed as an island on one of the signal layers. If you need to use more power planes, you might want to think about going to 10+ layers.

4) Plane spacing is important, and can have huge impact on performance, so you should specify this to the board house. If you take the example 6 layer stackup I mentioned above, spacing of .005 .005 .040 .005 .005 (instead of standard stackup with equal distance between layers) can make an order of magnitude improvement. It keeps the signal layers close to their reference plane (smaller loops).

2) I highly recommend AGAINST cutting ground anywhere near high-speed signals. Stray capacitance really doesn't have too much of an effect on digital electronics. Usually stray capacitance kills you when it acts to create a parasitic filter at the input of an op amp.

In fact, it is highly recommended to run your high-speed signals directly overtop of an unbroken ground plane; this is called a "microstrip". The reason is that high frequency current follows the path of least inductance. With a ground plane, this path will be a mirror image of the signal trace. This minimizes the size of the loop, which in turn minimizes radiated EMI.

A very striking example of this can be seen on Dr. Howard Johnson's web site. See figures 8 and 9 for an example of high-frequency current taking the path of least inductance. (in case you didn't know, Dr. Johnson is an authority on signal integrity, author of the much lauded "High-Speed Digital Design: A Handbook of Black Magic")

It's important to note that any cuts in the ground plane underneath one of these high-speed digital signals will increase the size of the loop because the return current must take a detour around your cutout, which leads to increased emissions as well. You want a totally unbroken plane underneath all your digital signals. It's also important to note that the power plane is also a reference plane just like the ground plane, and from a high-frequency perspective these two planes are connected via bypass capacitors, so you can consider a high-frequency return current to "jump" planes near the caps.

3) If you have a good ground plane, there's pretty much no reason to use a guard trace. The exception would be the op amp I mentioned earlier, because you may have cut the ground plane underneath it. But you still need to worry about the parasitic capacitance of a guard trace. Once again, Dr. Johnson is here to help with pretty pictures.

4.1) I believe that multiple small vias will have better inductance properties since they are in parallel, versus one large via taking up approximately the same amount of space. Unfortunately I cannot remember what I read that led me to believe this. I think it's because inductance of a via is linearly inversely proportional to radius, but the area of the via is quadratically directly proportional to the radius. (source: Dr. Johnson again) Make the via radius 2x bigger, and it has half the inductance but takes up 4x as much area.