Much as I find it interesting, and much as it recalls those heydays in the late 90s and early 2000s when such discussion was taboo and awash with the stain of witchcraft (for rebellion is the sin of witchcraft, to borrow a line from the book of Samuel, I believe), the analysis of the deliberations and decisions of the Concilium is hardly necessary.
Practically speaking, the revision of the lectionary is a done deal. It is not going to change. Was the process somewhat obscure to external observers? Absolutely. Is Bugnini's account of the reform drowning in inaccuracy and some self-agrandizing hagiography? Decidedly. But Rome is not moving back on the liturgical reform. The possibility of that has passed. Too much institutional weight was put behind it, too few people care about the older liturgy, and the areas of the world where Catholicism is booming haven't expressed much of an interest in re-instituting it.
The question anyone critiquing the liturgical reform needs to seriously consider is to what end are their efforts aimed? Rome isn't ready to consider abandoning the Pauline liturgy nor will it.