There's also the fact that the Prophecy of the Popes, though attributed to St. Malachy (who died in 1148), has no historical record before 1590 and was considered by many to be a forgery. Among these, was the noted Spanish monk and Thomist Benito Jeronimo Feijóo who posited that the spurious docuмent was created to help the election Girolamo Simoncelli to the pontificate, the reason being that up till Urban VII (whose papacy ended in 1590), the descriptions related to each pope (and even antipopes), were clear and unambiguous. Thereafter, it required the sort of bending that you seem to be employing with the Angelic Pope prophecy.
theres reason to be skeptical about it existing before 1590. Doesn't mean that it didn't exits before then.
How do you explain the fulfillment of this prophecy after 1590?
Aside from a total want in the Irish tradition regarding the prophecy, even from Malachy's biographer, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, there are many problems with work as a whole. First, there's the issue that the prophecy's content, from Celestine II to Paul IV (reigned 1555 - 1559), bears remarkable similarity to Panvinio's
Epitome Pontificuм Romanorum a S. Petro usque ad Paulum IIII, which was published in...wait for it...1557. Indeed, in virtually every case where the latter publishes the arms of a Pontiff, the "prophecy" refers to some aspect of it, otherwise, it references some other piece of biographical information. Then there's the fact that Arnold de Wion, the Benedictine author of the
Lignum Vitæ in which the "prophecy" was first published, admits that its elaboration was entirely the work of Dominican scholar Alfonso Chacón, and that the original was just a list of Latin phrases. It was Chacón who applied them to particular popes.
For a more in-depth critique of the Prophecy, I'd suggest reading
An Historical and Critical Account of the So-Called Prophecy of St. Malachy Regarding the Succession of Popes by Fr. M.J. O'Brien.