I don't know if you are trying Jose's or my proposed solution. As my solution applies to your sample file, I note that the lookup ranges in LJT are still sorted in ascending order, and the MATCH() functions are still using +1 for the 3rd argument. In order to implement my solution I:

0) Made copies of LJT and Work so I would not lose your originals.
1) I need to sort the table in LJT so the lookup ranges are both sorted in descending order:
1a) Select A3:K54 -> Data -> Sort -> by column 1/A, largest to smallest, make sure "my data has headers" is checked, (am I missing anything?) -> Sort
1b) Select B3:K54 -> Data -> Sort -> Options -> Sort left to right -> sort by row 3 largest to smallest (am I missing anything?) -> Sort
2) Go to Work and notice the N/A error in F21 (caused by the sort operation in step 1). Select F21 -> F2 (edit) -> put a negative sign - in front of each of the "match type" arguments in the two MATCH() functions =INDEX(...,MATCH(...,-1),MATCH(...,-1)). Result is 5.3 (as expected).
3) To check, pull up the "evaluate formula" tool (https://support.office.com/en-us/art...6-a70aa409b8a7 ) and step through the function. The "row" MATCH() function is returning 44 (table starts in row 3, so this is row 47 of LJT) and the "column" MATCH() function is returning 9 (table starts in column A, so this is column J of LJT). Look in LJT and see if J47 is indeed the expected return cell. J47 corresponds to 26 (lookup value was 25, so this looks right) and 1 (lookup value was 7/8, so this also looks right).
4) Enter different values in F16 and F20 of Work to see if the lookup value returns the correct values (as near as I could tell, it looked just fine).

As indicated in my first post, the big question is if you are allowed to sort the table in LJT in descending order or if that will cause a big uproar with the other users who need to use this spreadsheet. If sorting the table in LJT is allowed, that should work.