I think that's actually a more plausible harmonization than simply saying "God did it" on one hand and "Satan did it" on the other without explanation.
If the Hiphil is emphasizing causation or provocation, then both texts can be understood as describing different aspects of the same event.
In Samuel, God's anger against Israel forms the judicial backdrop that sets the event in motion.
In Chronicles, Satan is identified as the immediate agent who exploits that situation by tempting David toward a sinful course of action.
Your reconstruction that David perceived God's displeasure, feared the consequences, and then became susceptible to Satan's suggestion is certainly conceivable, and it has the advantage of preserving both accounts without making God the author of evil. Whether every detail of that reconstruction can be proven from the text is another question, but the basic idea that God's anger was the occasion and Satan's temptation was the means seems consistent with the way Scripture often describes events from both a divine and creaturely perspective.
So I would say your strongest point is not merely the grammar, but that 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 need not be treated as competing explanations at all.
God's anger against Israel and Satan's provocation of David can both be true, because they are answering different questions: Samuel addresses the divine judgment context, while Chronicles identifies the immediate tempter.