An avenuge of research worth being sniped on is Typed Assembly Language
TALs are also solving an entirely different problem.
I didn't say you were referring to TALs. Yours is a syntax level check, not type checking of the program in the normative sense. It might be more accurate refer to your technique as an "instruction signature", rather than a type.
I would argue that that are complementary and not entirely different.
I thought it would be interesting for folks.
I think you do your analysis a disservice by focusing on “is assembly language typed?” as the top line question. The more interesting question you examine is what do the type constraints in inline asm offer, and how do they interact with the host language’s type system?
And from that huge table of type information, this can be used to give good error messages and suggestions to the user because the compiler actually knows all of this. The type constraints here allow for a lot more than information that normal assemblers just don't give.
I suspect the main reason someone might quibble over the “assembly is typed” assertion is that many programmers have a rather narrow view of type systems, heavily skewed by OOP patterns.
And we already track all of the basic side-effects and clobbering that each form of each mnemonic does. That's kind of the entire point of this being possible: it's all "typed".