You cannot be saying there is only black and white and no grey issues for modern trads to consider. R&R, SV'ism, and the literally infinite variations thereof most certainly constitute grey areas. Black and white is limited to a pre-Vatican II orthodoxy that excludes the grey paradox of the modern papacy.
R&R is paradoxical in its very name and SV'ism has no mechanism to refill the supposed empty seat.
Orthodoxy being the light of the Kingdom and heterodoxy being the darkness of Satan, black and white are laid out clearly enough. One resides in one or in the other. The "grey" appears by one unlike substance washing into the other. Imbibing this greyness excludes a soul from being in one or the other, leaving such people in a flux of adulteration thereby making I difficult or impossible to identify those who have left the light for darkness.
The modern papacies are not grey paradoxes. They have been stunningly heterodox, they have left the light and reside firmly in the Kingdom of Satan.
Mixing that reality with one's purity of Faith is the gravest danger to the soul, and all of the arguments for the greyness are no more than carnal excuses for the faithlessness of the Conciliarists of the parishes, in the Chanceries, and upon the Roman throne.
Trads need only consider what is orthodox and judge and act accordingly, rejecting all that in not of it.
Sojourning in this veil of tears, one encounters problems where there is no clear or clean solution. One chooses the lessor of apparent evils with confidence that God will judge our decision on subjective motive rather than objective outcome.
You apparently ascribe to a version of Sedevacantism despite arguments put forth that such a position is erroneous. I do not begrudge you this position, except to say that dogmatizing it into an issue of black and white is mistaken. Pre-Vatican II orthodoxy is dogmatic, but one's personal post-Vatican II position cannot be.
I dare say that if your position were fully fleshed out and dogmatized, it would divide you from practically every other professed traditionalist Catholic alive today. If this is not true of you, it is certainly true of me and virtually everyone else among the wide variety of trads with whom I've spoken on these matters. In practice, most trads dogmatize their positions up to some arbitrary level, and then reluctantly put up with the remaining difference with their priest and parish mates. I submit that one should dogmatize no further than pre-Vatican II orthodoxy and permit liberty elsewhere. That seems the most logical and clean traditionalist cut-off point.
Every thoughtful trad posses his own unique and continually evolving ad hoc
post-Vatican II position. This is natural and unavoidable given the situation, but it should be obvious that dogmatizing an ad hoc
position, never officially approved in the present context, is mistaken.