If you were 1 year from FIRE and this was a 600k portfolio I could understand the question.
This isn't the case. You have 22k. So let me teach you young grasshopper of the stock market why I am 100% stock in my retirement accounts AND I pray for a market crash.
Lets say worst(?) case scenario you invest 22k right now, and the market dives 50% tomorrow. Many people would freak out. I would throw a party. Because you are still in the early stages, you are still adding to the account. Lets say over the next year you add 11k, then another 11k the following year, and then by year three the market is even again. Your original 22k is worth 22k again... well actually there were dividends, make that 23k. However the 22k you added went in when the market was down 50%, so now that the market is even you are up 100% on those funds. They are worth 44k + dividends so lets call it 47k. So you have 70k total.
What would happen if the market just continued to bob along at +8% growth plus 2% dividends for 10% annual growth?
22k X 1.1 X 1.1 X 1.1 = 29282.
11k X 1.1 X 1.1 = 13310
11k X 1.1 = 12100.
Total = 54,692.
If the market dropped 50% and then slowly got back to even over a 3 year period adding 22k along the way you would have significantly MORE money than if the market just kept growing at 10% while you added money.
So let me rephrase what I said earlier. WORST case scenario you let this money sit in cash and miss out on growth if the market keeps going up. BEST case scenario you invest and then it crashes and all new contributions go in cheep. MEDIOCRE scenario you go 100% in and it just trends up over time from here. If you plan on timing it you will just lose in the long run.
Now what if you said you wanted to go 100% all in, but because domestic stock valuations were a little high you might allocate 5-10% more to international stocks than you had originally planned? Well thats an idea I would not only support, but I do it mightself ;). Oh, and your allocation in the poll didn't include international stocks. You should probably have some of those.
EDIT: In addition. PE Ratios aren't very good at predicting if the stock market is overvalued or undervalued. According to PE ratios 2009 was the WORST year ever in history to invest(PE 123.7 which is about 700% over the historical average). Companies had little earnings you see so even after the 08 crash the stocks were still insanely overvalued using PE ratios. In retrospect 2009 was actually one of the best years in history to invest, especially in the last few decades. If you do want to keep a gauge on the valuations of stocks CAPE tends to be a better gauge. However CAPE is 100% useless for predicting returns in a 1 year time frame. It can tell you if stocks are likely to outperform or underperform their historical averages over the next 10 years, and not much else. Right now CAPE says stocks are expensive, but again... all that tells us is that they are more likely to earn <10% average annual returns than they are to average >10% average annual returns over the next 10 years.