I spent a few minutes looking at it, had some thoughts, let me know if you (yeah, You) need clarification.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing that this "map" reveals that isn't already contained within known formulations of mathematics, although it is an interesting visualization.

So let's start with what I do know.

The triangle, square, and hexagon shapes all derive their symmetry from the fact that they are divisible by 12. Same goes for the vertical line of the number 6. There could have been more of all of these shapes drawn in the map, but the only drawn symmetric shapes (the ones I've listed so far) are the smallest and largest iterations (though 6's vertical lines got left out completely), so as to highlight the behavior of the "prime" traces and the assertion that it is related to... obscure schtuffs (we'll get to tat later).

The stars and spiral geometry of the entities at the bottom of the chart only contain information we already know as well. Because the numbers 5 and 7 have no integer relations to 12, and 12 forms the "angular resolution/basis", shall we call it (like a 12-slice pizza), 5 and 7 trace out seemingly random star shapes. Provided you had a 35-piece diagram, the multiples of 5 would trace out symmetric heptagons, for instance. As for the two spirals highlighted at the bottom; if you had, say, a 13-piece design, the multiples of 12 and 14 would trace out logarithmic spirals. The fact that 11 and 13 are prime numbers isn't actually relevant. In a 30 piece diagram, 29 and 31 would have the same shape.

Now, to get my semi-speculations out of the way.

I think that the top leftmost (and perhaps most confusing) assertion on the map, that "2 and 10 act as 'doublers', alternating between the doubling of prime positions next to them and across" is a relic of the fact that he has formulated a number system of base 10 in a geometry related to 12, and 2 is the difference between them. Don't ask me to explain this, because I don't even fully grasp what he's trying to say. The same goes for the bottom paragraph on the map. Still, it is irrelevant, because as all mathematicians know, there is no known pattern or algorithm to compute prime numbers or relations between prime numbers (a generalized theorem). This can only mean that any patterns Tesla draws from his "map" are mere artifacts of the 12 spoke geometry he has constructed. And I imagine he knew that. OK, speculation complete.

Since it's totally arbitrary what the units of angular division are, the fact that Tesla chose 12 was likely to aid in converting metric decimal-based (10 base) units between our stupid units of time (base 60, or 12, as 12 is a divisor of 60) and/or angles being kept in terms of "360 degrees", as 12 also serves as a divisor there.

I feel like the "12/12/1912" release date doesn't lend any credence to the credibility of the authenticity, nor the seriousness, provided that it is authentic.

I like to believe that Tesla was definitely an experimentalist and not a mathematician. I mean, this wasn't bad, for 1912, but Einstein was out doing his thing, deriving general relativity, which to this day belittles every single other human being's accomplishments, so yeah.

At least one cool idea would be to iterate Tesla's idea to graph a similar drawing to n-layers of an m-numbered spoke and trace out various geometries, (warning:trigger MANDLEBOT RELATED) you could even do like a virtual Spirograph or iterate infinitely with an associated color palette. Yeah so people have already done that, but it would behoove one's coding skills.

TL;DR: He's formulated a base-12 (but also still base-10/decimal) geometry that then served as a palette for other geometries related via maths, and there's nothing truly novel or revolutionary about it (sorry!). I mean c'mon the drawn lines aren't even perfect, it's like Tesla either sucked at Photoshop or Fortran or both, maybe.

And if no one ever reads this post, that's alright too.