As I see it, he says one thing on number 1, and another on number 2.

Considering the greater picture, so to speak, and not just this text, it seems to me that Fr. Calderon cannot abstain from saying number 2, as his conscience would probably be troubled, but, as he is an SSPX priest, he is bound to say number 1, otherwise, he would be shown exit the door.

All the same, the SSPX praxis is to completely ignore number 2.

Yes Giovanni, that is why it is so important to make this study known and get an English translation in circulation. Remember it was written in 2014 before the Huonder scandal. I was recently talking to an SSPX priest who was shocked when he heard Fr Calderon's conclusion, he thought the NREC was held by the SSPX to be CERTAINLY valid. Fr Calderon's superiors asked him to do the study, but they don't seem to like his conclusion so they have essentially buried it. It didn't make headlines in the Angelus like Fr Pierre-Marie's study.

My opinion regarding validity of FORM for Novus Ordo Sacraments as presented in the Latin typical editions:
1. Baptism - valid
2. Confirmation - probably valid
3. Eucharist - valid
4. Penance - valid
5. Extreme Unction - probably valid
6. Matrimony - valid
7. Holy Orders
          A. Deacon- valid
          B. Priest - probably valid
          C. Bishop - doubtfully valid
              (leaning probably invalid)

7C has serious ramifications on the validity of the actual administration of 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7.

I would agree with all these except for ...

3. Eucharist -- possibly valid
7B. Priest -- probably invalid

Now, with 3, before they restored the "for many" translation of the words of consecration, I would have held it to be almost certainly invalid.  Of course, you mentioned the Latin Typical editions.  I knew one Jesuit priest at Loyola University in Chicago who refused to do the New Mass in anything but Latin because he felt that the "for all" invalidated the Mass.  Now that this has been corrected, I hold that he Mass may possibly be valid (provided a valid priest and the cascading effects of 7C, as you mentioned), but IMO highly unlikely due to the major change in the adjuncta.  They have changed the Mass extensively with the intent of stripping out most references to Sacrifice, and the Offertory has been completely perverted, being replaced (blasphemously) with a slight variation on a тαℓмυdic "blessing" and with zero reference to the Holy Sacrifice.  In general, their "Anaphora I" (first Canon) is in fact (in Latin) nearly identical to the Tridentine Canon, but IMO the vitiation/destruction of a Catholic Offertory suffices to render the entire thing invalid ex adjunctis, as per the reasoning of Pope Leo XIII regarding the Anglican Orders.

I find it very suspicious that they finally restored the "pro multis" / "for many" after the great majority of priests who were ordained by a bishop who was consecrated in the Traditional Rite had retired or passed away.

With regard to 7B (Priest), that minor change of removing the "ut" is also highly suspicious because it's just one two-letter word.  How would removing that word somehow make the form somehow more "relevant" and "modern"?  It would hardly be noticed by most.  But, as Pius XII taught in Sacramentum Ordinis, the two key aspects of the essential form are the invocation of the Holy Spirit and mention of the Sacramental effect.  While both remain, it's now unclear that the Holy Spirit is being invoked to produce the Sacramental effect, with the removal of ut severing the causality between the two.

[Heavily Paraphrased]
Old:  "May the Holy Spirit come down upon him to make him a priest."
New:  "May the Holy Spirit come down up him.  May he become a priest."

One might say that it's still implied, but it's rather equivocal, for the Holy Spirit can be invoked for any number of reasons.  Is the Holy Spirit being invoked to give him the proper dispositions or the graces of state, or to actually produce the Sacramental effect?  It's not entirely clear, and it needs to be unequivocal in order to assure validity.