Maybe - I dare say shamelessly - one can repeat the process using some material such as aluminium foil, the supermarket one, which should be of uniform thickness:
1 sheet;
2 sheets;
3 sheets;
4 sheets;
Each "sheet" should add a fraction of a millimetre. Very boring, but that should be only for "fine tuning".
You can "industrialise" the process by cutting all the little aluminium foil stripes first. Very nice if you have three of four hours that you don't know how to employ ;-)
Or you could ask information (on the internet, on this forum) about the thickness of the missing washers (measured with a calibre).
Anyway, to answer your later question, LF photographers do use this method, so I suppose it should be decently accurate if you aim for zero mistake, without taking into consideration the film thickness. The problem I see is that the glass is perfectly planar and the film might not sit perfectly planar on the focal plane, so the film method would take into account imperfections of your film pressor.
Fabrizio
EDIT. Thinking better about it, planarity problems should not descend from the pressor, but from consumption, or imperfection, of the camera rails, which should be well reproduced by the glass method, if you press it against the camera rails. But if the rails have some shallow points inside (so as to make a slight "curve", as seen from above) and are correct at the extremities, the film might "copy" them (and make a curve) while the glass will not. In this case, you should see that the glass does not make an exact contact on all points of the rails.
So you could make like the dentists do: "paint" with some non-permanent marker the rails; put the glass on the rails; if the glass is "painted" along its entire lenght, the rails are fine and the glass method will work fine, aiming for zero error.