Also, fwiw, this Formula was decreed over 1000 years before the Law of Quo Primum

Well it's not worth much, we already went over this.

I think very few people indeed (perhaps only you) would think that the words, "omit nothing" translates to,
"Always name whoever is touted as the legitimate Roman Pontiff at that time in the Te Igitur regardless of all circuмstances and evidence to the contrary."

Then those who did not continue to name Pius V in the Mass when he was dead would have "omitted something", and violated Quo Primum.

Then those who did not know Pius V had died and Gregory XIII had been elected and they continued to name Pius V in the Canon would have been "omitting" the name of the true Pope.

Obviously the "omit nothing" means "removing anything that the rubrics proscribe."

The rubrics proscribe naming the Roman Pontiff when alive.
If there is no Roman Pontiff at the time then that is to be OMITTED.
So, even according to your janky logic here, just following the rubrics in the case of sede vacante would be to violate Quo Primum! The rubrics call to "omit something"

I don't think any sane person would agree with you on this, but it is not essential to understanding the formula of Pope Hormisdas anyway.

The bottom line for me is this

Yes, yes, I know you are just looping back to Fr. Wathen as this is your default belief.

But will you confirm this is what the line from the formula means or not?

In other words, do you agree that the core principle is more broad and actually twofold?

i.e.

I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have
their names read during the sacred mysteries.

So the core principles would be more accurately stated thus,

"Only those who have the Catholic faith and acknowledge the legitimate spiritual authority over them should be named in that part of Mass because this naming symbolizes unity in the faith and eccelesastical subordination."

This is why the formula starts out with faith as supreme,

1) "The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers."

And then immediately expresses subordination,

2) "for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated."

It is only after these two principles are established that the formula goes on to pronounce the anathemas.

Yes, yes, I know you are just looping back to Fr. Wathen as this is your default belief.

But will you confirm this is what the line from the formula means or not?

You and gladius knock me for referencing Fr. Wathen in order to derail and imply he's wrong or something, but what you cannot do is dispute what he said, that's because what he said is truth.  

Of course I agree with it, when a good future pope comes out and condemns the conciliar popes to be heretics and schismatics and to omit their name from the canon, I will be 100% onboard. Why do you imply that I wouldn't?