Not whilst some who have an ideological objection to nuclear power are deliberately trying to stuff the figures up you can't.
Precision in EROI calculations is anyway difficult, and provide immense opportunities to fiddle the figures.
There are also real difficulties, like the fact that your figures are very different if you assume reprocessing or if you don't, and that by itself would account for a substantial amount of the difference between the Swedish figures and the US figures where they don't reprocess.
If they are using old processes to make the initial uranium into fuel in the US figures, that might account for most of the rest.
Except where it is a plainly daft situation, such as in ethanol from corn, you don't usually have to bother as the dollar figure gives you a good estimate of whether something is worthwhile.

Just about everyone here on the site aside from David has acknowledged that the 93:1 number is completely bogus.

Chris

"Is it not possible for intelligent people to sit down and devise a methodology of arriving at a EROEI framework that has putative validity and utility that we can use to formulate policy and useful discussion?"

No, it is not possible. Intelligent people disagree widely regarding what inputs to include and how to value externalities & opportunity costs. There is no non-arbitrary way to arrive at such valuations. Hence, EROEI analytic methodology can't be agreed upon & hence isn't very meaningful.