Even the SV position seems rather dumb, where +Sanborn picks some arbitrary year for doing an investigation, even though an investigation after so many years is useless, and a waste of time for priests who have a lot of better things they could be doing with their time.

I'd conditionally re-administer any Sacrament received via the Conciliar apostates, no questions asked, much less any investigation.  There's no requirement to do a thorough investigation.  When +Lefebvre was asked about Confirmations, he simply said that he didn't really have the time or resources to investigate, that if the parents were concerned, they could investigate themselves, but other than that, he just conditionally confirmed anyone who asked.  That's the right approach IMO.

Novus Ordites play so fast and loose with Sacramental forms, deriding the people who consider them to be "magical incantations", encouraging creative ad-libbing to match the circuмstances of people's lives, etc. ... that this alone suffices to establish sufficient prudent doubt to conditionally administer anything that came out of that morass.

Here's the thing, and why you have to ignore the deliberate SSPX conflations.  NO, THERE IS NO SACRILEGE AGAINST THE SACRAMENT if you use the CONDITIONAL FORM.  That is precisely the very point of the conditional form, to prevent re-administration of Sacraments that cannot be administered validly more than once.  If the Sacrament had already been validly confected, then ... the Sacrament is not confected again, and ergo no sacrilege.

The point is that some have difficulty between a "hypothetical doubt" and a "reasonable doubt". Only a reasonable doubt allows/demands for a conditional baptism, otherwise it would be a sin. 

What some priests have a hard time coming to grips with is that STATISTICS create a reasonable doubt. This means that historical data shows that NEGLIGENCE is often present in the administration. This is the way it has been for Protestants sects that actually have a Catholic rite of baptism; their negligent historical use creates a reasonable doubt. The Novus Ordo is not only worse in regard to statistical negligence, but it is worse in regard to innovation and experimentation that the Protestants didn't even have. Yet Protestant baptism ALWAYS had conditionals upon conversion, and Novus Ordo should be more so......but they don't for many traditional priests. It's a problem that is now exploding like St. Jerome said that the world suddenly woke up and found itself Arian!

So, the threshold is quite low, typically translated as "prudent", rational / reasonable, etc. ... the opposite being irrational, basically a purely negative "what if" (same as "hypothetical" doubt).

Your doubt has to be based on something.  I can't go around willy-nilly conditionally baptizing people "just in case".  "What if the priest who baptized you got it wrong?  Let's do it conditionally just in case?"  That would be constitute a disrespect for the Sacrament in a bit of a more remote sense, but not directly, as a sacrilege, by re-administering a Sacrament that cannot be repeated without condition.

When we see the Conciliars playing loose and fast with the Sacrament because that's a pervasive mentality among them, and story after story of people adlibing and experimenting, etc. ... that suffices to create prudent doubt even for the Sacrament of Baptism.  Now, the Sacraments that required Holy Orders to administer, for those there's MORE THAN sufficient postiive doubt, and in fact, I think that it's almost certain that the Novus Ordo Rite of Ordination and Rite of Episcopal Consecration are INVALID, and not merely laboring under positive doubt, there there's no question that there's positive doubt there.

Since Baptism can be validly confected by someone withou Holy Orders, that's where the general concern about Concilair experimentation and "creativity" (a virtue they praise) come in.  Contrast the mentality with that of Catholic priests prior to Vatican II.  No priest would ever think of monkeying with the essential forms of the Sacraments, and their reluctance to do so would be reinforced by the fact that the forms are in Latin.  For pre-Vatican II you'd have to have something specific to a particular priest or a specific ceremony at a certain time or place.  Example of a priest might be ... Cardinal Cushing.  If you've ever heard him bumble and fumble through the Mass at Kennedy's requiem Mass, I'd probably not have an issues with conditionally ordaining any of the priests he ordained because ... in a more complex Rite like that, if his consecration at Mass, perhaps THE most familiar Sacramental Rite to him, was suspect, then what about an Ordination?  Other than this type of situation, it would be ... "hey, I was there, and I'm pretty sure I heard the priest say 'ego te absolvo' instead of 'ego te baptizo' (since the priest may have been distracted or sleepy, etc.).

I agree with all that you say here.

I would only add that moral theologians use different terms, I believe Jone says, "even a slight doubt" can warrant using conditional form.

And others besides Jone.

You should seek out a resistance Mass.

Where you will have guaranteed valid Sacraments, (unlike Thuc line sedes),
AND a firm distancing from Modernism.
You can't be a good Catholic, say you resist errors against the Faith and yet go to a SSPX or some other TLM with Rome group.

Once you have found your nearest resistance Mass, plan to go there as often as you can make it. Whether that be once a month, or once even 6 months.

Thank God that you're not living in Africa or Asia, where they have none at all in most of their continents.

If you live in the US, you are going to have a resistance Mass within 8 hours drive of you max.


P.S.. you dont need conditional baptism, but should get the baptism compliments. That is just the exorcism prayers.