The A position also had Suprema Haec Sacra.

It actually endorses neither position but just says that in addition to an implicit desire for baptism you need supernatural faith and charity. It neither limits nor defines the extent of the necessary articles of faith, whether 2 or 4.
I say 4 for many reasons, in part because you see authors in the 18th century specifically saying that the watering down of the dogma EENS and the theorizing of implicit faith is a recent innovation. Indeed, I blame it on two things-
1. The discovery of America leading to speculation on the state of deceased Indians,
2. Protestantism in its 2nd and 3rd generations, namely souls departing as "Protestants in good faith."
These two elements combined with the liberalism arising from the renaissance and disordered humanism became a recipe for theological disaster.

1. The discovery of America leading to speculation on the state of deceased Indians,
2. Protestantism in its 2nd and 3rd generations, namely souls departing as "Protestants in good faith."
These two elements combined with the liberalism arising from the renaissance and disordered humanism became a recipe for theological disaster.

I would agree.  These are all emotional and not theological reasons.  Another example of how people start with an agenda rooted in emotion and then create the theology afterwards in support of it.  Protestantism, however, would not be an example of BoD in many cases where Protestants are in fact validly baptized; that involves the notion of potential material heresy (vs. formal) ... which is a very blurry discussion (blurred by people who think of material heresy as synonymous with "sincerity" or "meaning well").  But let's stay way from that question for now.

I know. I remember reading his opinion about that on the Te Deum Forum. But nearly everyone else thinks it taught otherwise and most people in the Church and the Novus Ordo interpreted it as teaching otherwise. And when I read it, it seems to me that it taught otherwise also.

That's why I said debatable.  We could add SH tentatively to category A.  Even then, the preponderance of evidence is in favor of B.  And SH's authority is pretty low ... not even "authentic" due to its failure to appear in AAS.  I consider it a fake and the handiwork of the same modernists who brought us the V2 revolution.

I am not certain of this, but I don't think every Curial decision needs to be rendered part of the AAS, and they are binding on the laity simply as Curial decisions IIRC.

Not inherently, obviously, or by divine law.  But the reason for the Church law which specifies that all acts of the authentic Magisterium must appear here ... is precisely to avoid spurious or fraudulent garbage from being attributed to the Magisterium.  All signs are that SH was just such a fraud.  WHY would the Holy See fail to include this in AAS?

Not inherently, obviously, or by divine law.  But the reason for the Church law which specifies that all acts of the authentic Magisterium must appear here ... is precisely to avoid spurious or fraudulent garbage from being attributed to the Magisterium.  All signs are that SH was just such a fraud.  WHY would the Holy See fail to include this in AAS?

I do think it is suspicious if it is correctly attributed to the express will of Pope Pius XII.

Even Msgr. Fenton agrees that the Faith necessary for salvation must be explicit in 4 points: the existence of God, He being a Rewarder, the Incarnation of Our Lord, and the Holy Trinity.

From his work The Meaning of the Church Necessity for Salvation, 1951:

"Likewise, and by force of the very content of Catholic theology, it is standard scholastic teaching that the votum or desire of entering the Catholic Church may be merely implicit and still sufficient to bring a man “within” the Church so as to make his salvation possible. Salvific faith must be explicit on four points. No man can believe in God as he must believe in order to possess the life of sanctifying grace without distinctly acknowledging the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order, the fact that God thus rewards the good and punishes evil, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and the mystery of the Incarnation. The mystery of the Catholic Church is not one of these facts which must be believed explicitly in salvific faith."