Tell me, do you judge every Catholic you meet as to whether or not they are schismatics?
Someone who publically states that she regards Francis to be pope but refuses to submit to his authentic magisterium is manifestly, and by definition, in formal schism.
This is fact. Its truth follows immediately from canon law.
These laws have been pointed out to you, quoted verbatim, but you simply ignore them, which is further evidence of a schismatic will. It doesn't matter what claims and arguments you bring from the SSPX: refusal to sumbit ones will and intellect to the teachings of the Roman pontiff's authentic magisterium is to be guilty of schism.
Moreover, if you refuse communion with Catholics who are subject to him (Can751), you are also in schism: the only way out is if they are heretics or schismatics, but bear in mind that you have no business taking to be heretics or schismatics those whom the Holy Father regards as his flock in communion with him. If you shun those whom you call "Novus Ordos" but whom Francis accepts as Catholics, you're in schism.
So, no, I give every apparent Catholic I meet the benefit of the doubt until he makes his heresy or schism manifest, at which point I of course form a judgment of the truth of this, just as I judge that the sky is blue, grey or black.