Caminus, your examples that do not add one tittle to Public Revelation are in fact perfect examples of the Church invoking Her infallibility on matters of faith and morals.
When a proposition is condemned as heretical, it is condemned as contrary to revealed dogma, which is only Faith and morals.
You've just conceded the point. Now you change your tune a little for you previously asserted infallibility pertains only to matters of divine revelation. That was the foundation of your most ridiculous argument denying infallibility to dogmatic facts and truths of philosophy. Now you want to assert that the negation of revelation is somehow actually a part of revelation.
The Church generally refrains, however from condemning the intended meaning of the authors of such propositions, and with good cause. It can be very difficult to know the subjective state of the persons soul and disposition, not to mention mitigating factors, the potential unreliability of the human testimony, etc.
The Church ALWAYS condemned a proposition in the sense that the author intended, at least according to the propositions context.
For example, it has happened before that enemies a particular person stitch together quotes from his or her works in a disingenuous and unrepresentative manner, present them to the Holy See, and demand condemnation.
And in such cases, the Holy Office conducted a thorough investigation into the matter. What you imply is that it is practially impossible to extract the intended meaning, which is exactly what the Jansenists alleged.
How could the same not apply to canonizations, which also rely on fallible human testimony?
Witness testimony is considered to constitute morally certain evidence. But ultimately, there can be no error because of the exercise of supreme authority, upon which our certitude rests. The Church is infallible because it possesses supreme authority, not the other way around.
All instances named in the second paragraph quoted are instances that touch specifically on how various objects stand in relation to the dogmas of faith and morals.
To assert that something "stands in relation" is to imply a non-identity.
So you have yet to prove what you assert, that is that the Holy Ghost was promised for any other purpose than to religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
I don't need to prove it because you've already conceded the point. Unless you wish to assert that heresy or a falsehood has more of a "relation" to the faith than the Saints whose relics adorn our altars and who stand as perfect witnesses and models of Christian learning and sanctity? Are you prepared to assert such diabolical nonsense?
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the exercise of supreme authority somehow affects the content of revelation when in reality the two notions are entirely distinct. It is this fallacy which vitiates your mind. If you persist, your infamy will be noted yet again and will bring nothing but scorn and contempt upon your person.