If this is a U.S. application I would consider more than one independent claim. It is often a good idea to come at the invention from a different perspective in a second independent claim.
Claims are not for "explanation" but for definition of the boundaries of the invention. An exception can be in the case that your independent claims sound a little abstract or convoluted. It can help to have a "picture claim" as the first claim, by way of explanation. Examiners often skip right to the claims before reading the spec. and a picture claim can be helpful in some cases. There is no rule that claim 1 needs to be broader than subsequent claims.
Be very careful about the use of "or" and "and". You probably mean ". . . determining x is based on one or more of: a, b and c . . ." Meaning that the set of things that at least one of which is included is the set consisting of a and b and c. The MPEP examples of proper use is
"a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or
"wherein the material is A, B, or C")"
Having a sets of possible things that a claim covers means that if prior art is found, now or later, that includes one of those things the claim will be unenforceable.
One approach to consider is to have some of the claim wording appear as part of the specification rather than as actual claims. "An aspect of the inventions is determining x from y, wherein determining x is based on one or more of: a, b or c; and processing x, wherein processing x comprises performing one of l, m or n."
This assures that a later introduction of that wording in an amendment claim set or in a continuation application will not be seen as new matter. This can be particularly important in applications that might someday be filed as EPO claims.