I’m a BIG Rommel fan, so I’ll state I have a bias up front.
Having said that, I respectfully disagree with your analysis of how he would have done on the Eastern Front. Whether as a division commander under his old Corps commander from France, Hermann Hoth [7th Pz was part of PzGrp 3], or as a Corps commander, Rommel would have brought a great deal of drive, ingenuity and elan to the Eastern Front. For example, Rommel was the first German Army officer to use 88s as anti-tank guns at Arras in 1940
[although there are claims, which I can’t substantiate, that von Thoma may have done it in Spain].
Rommel wasn’t just competent in 1940, he led the way. He crossed the Meuse before Guderian. He led the drive through France. And he had never handled armor before that time. He was the ultimate combat commander, and would have shone anywhere.
When I was at Armor School, further back then I’d care to remember, Patton was King. But Rommel was God.
I don’t think anyone disagrees that Rommel was an effective and energetic tactical battlefield commander. It is his ability to wage war at the higher operational and strategic levels that is questioned. For example, with his headstrong impetuosity, I doubt he would have been able to have juggled his forces and conserved his units the way Manstein did at the “Miracle of the Donetz” in 1943. Some commanders, like Model, made the leap from tactical to operational commander, and excelled in both offensive and defensive battle. Rommel’s ideas of defensive battle were little better than Hitler’s.