CathInfo.com

2) SSPX believes 95% of V2 is OK; Resistance believes V2 is irredeemably corrupted by modernism;
----
8) SSPX accepts the hermeneutic of continuity (per the April 15, 2012 doctrinal declaration)

This is just semantics, politicking, spin, etc.  Both groups reject the exact same errors in Vatican II.  Heck, the SVs also reject the same errors in Vatican II.  [They're all missing the core error, but that's a side issue.]
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/recognizing-sspx-questioning-vatican-ii-2380

One might then suppose that it is these specific texts—on religious liberty, the Church, ecuмenism, and collegiality—that are the problem. The rift between the Holy See and the SSPX arises because the Society rejects these particular elements of Vatican II ...

[The SSPX] claims that some of the assertions of Vatican II contradict other magisterial teachings that have greater authority, and hence that accepting the doctrines of the Catholic Church requires accepting these more authoritative teachings and rejecting the small proportion of errors in Vatican II.

Start reading Lumen Gentium and let me know of when you find the first erroneous statement.  When you find it, perhaps you could keep a word count so we can get the exact number.  In fact, if you look at the text of Vatican II, Bishop Fellay's number is very likely materially correct.

There's no statement there about whether this means the Council can be "fixed" by simply deleting this 5% or amending it.  This was just +Fellay playing politics, no different than a lot of the statements that Archbishop Lefebvre made when he was in talks with Rome.

WIth regard to your "hermeneutic of continuity", +Lefebvre himself said that he accepted Vatican II "in the light of Tradition and the constant Magisterium of the Church" (Letter to JP2, March 8, 1980 and reiterated in Letter to Cardinal Seper, April 4, 1981).  Of course, he would later say this was a mental reservation.  +Lefebvre too, like +Fellay, was politicking in the interests of recognition by the Vatican, even boasting of cracking down on the evil sedevacantists, some of whom like The Nine were sacrificed on the altar of these negotiations with Wojtyla).

So we have +Lefebvre stating that he accepts the Council per se.  +Fellay rightly points out (as even SVs would have to agree) that materially speaking only about 5% of Vatican II is technically erroneous, and is spinning it in the interests of reunification with Rome, just as +Lefebvre was in the early 1980s.

I'm not sure how someone can categorically reject a Ecuмenical Council given full approbation by the man whom you claim to be the Vicar of Christ, but much less do I understand condemning as non-Catholic someone who claims that we must accept everything in it that isn't contrary to the faith, as that's classic R&R, namely, to obey and accept everything that's Catholic.

This is merely a squabble about the implications of the same thinking, that this Council proceeded from legitimate authority but taugth some things that were contrary to Tradition.

At the end of the day, however, this is not some huge matter of faith, but merely a theological disagreement about the implications of a legitimate Pope calling a legitimate Ecuмenical Council and issuing a body of teaching, some of which is contrary to Tradition.  Do you accept the teachings in it that are good, i.e., not contrary to Catholic faith, or do you reject the entire thing?  You could argue either way, but it's a theological dispute based on the same premises.  This disagreement is not a matter of faith or a matter of conscience, but something that R&R seminarians could argue about over lunch in the refectory.

4) SSPX believes in doctrinal pluralism (takes its place in the conciliar pantheon); Resistance does not accept doctrinal pluralism: Rome must convert;

No they don't.  Accepting a pragmatic situation where SSPX are recognized even while varous groups of Modernists contiue to exist in the Church is not the same as DOCTRINAL pluralism.  There were Modernists and heretics in the Church well before Vatican II, Cardinal Cushing being one of the most notorious.  At the end of the day, one can argue that it's not my business who else is not kicked out of the Church.  So it would have been OK for, say, Cardinal Spellman to go into schism because the Vatican didn't expel the Modernist Heretic Cushing?

What do you mean "Rome must convert"?  If Rome must convert, then Rome is not Catholic, and is therefore not "Rome" at all.

This disptue between neo-SSPX and Resistance is just a matter of emphasis and nuance and practical implications.  What are the practical implications of a man who is the Catholic pope, the Vicar of Christ, who legitimately excercises the authority of Christ, and somehow basically has the Catholic faith, and yet also holds various errors or heresies?  Does one emphasize the Catholic part of him or the non-Catholic part of him?

There's no substantive theological dispute here whatsoever.