CathInfo.com

This makes no sense.  You don't always know. 

Going back to Fr Scott's article, 1 simple change from 'priesthood' to 'presbyterate' changes validity.  If a novus ordo priest was not aware that this mattered, why would he pay attention to this detail?  He wouldn't.  So years and years later, when the new-sspx "investigates" and asks the "priest" --

SSPX -- "At your ordination, did the "bishop" use the word 'priesthood' or 'presbyterate'?
priest -- Does it matter?
SSPX -- Yes.
priest -- I don't know.
SSPX -- ....

Now the 'priest' can go back and look at the book used, and see if the vernacular used the correct word, 'priesthood', but....if the bishop were a modernist bent on creating fake priests, could simply ignore the book and say 'presybterate'.  Everyone in the novus ordo wouldn't bat an eye because this word is often used.  They wouldn't know it's invalidating and they wouldn't remember.

So, nobody knows if this guy is a priest or not.  You don't always know.

Pax, you are not understanding what he wrote, he said that when it's translated into the vernacular the word "priest" is translated as "presbyter." Which means if the NO priest was ordained in the vernacular, the expectation is that he gets conditionally ordained.

Also note that in the link, Fr. Scott notes that +ABL said: “The ‘matter’ of the sacrament has been preserved in the laying on of hands which takes place next, and likewise the ‘form,’ namely, the words of ordination.”

You believe we all know better than +ABL in this matter, I do not. I believe that at least some NO priests are valid. The Church says that where there is doubt, we treat as invalid. It is because at least some NO priests are valid, that the Church says that before one can be conditionally ordained, the case must be investigated and a determination made - so that no sacrilege is committed. Like it or not, that is the rule of the Church that the SSPX still follows and should follow as long as there are still valid NO priests floating around out there. 

Personally, it seems to me that it is a very short and relatively simple matter to investigate each case, it's the re-training and re-forming them in tradition that takes time.

  I was thinking: Can we conclude that+ Lefebvre retained a type of jurisdiction (read AUTHORITY)? originating from his valid episcopate (Titular Archbishop)?  He could perhaps "determine", while he was still with us, about doubtful ordinations...

I don't think it has anything to do with jurisdiction, rather, it has to do with knowing what changes to the matter and form would cause doubt or invalidity. 

+ABL ordained who knows how many (hundreds?) priests since he was made a bishop. Based on that fact alone I would say we are safe to say that he KNOWS what would render the New Rite doubtful or invalid.