I haven't followed your debate on the Lefebvre consecrations very closely, but ultimately the issue comes down to this: Was Lefebvre paranoid, imprudent, disloyal, etc. to doubt the word of the Vatican that they would approve an episcopal consecration in the future.
One could validly take either side of that argument, but let me offer this bit of evidence regarding trusting the Vatican's word about future episcopal consecrations: It has been 16 years now, and where is the bishop for the FSSP? According to the Vatican view, the Fraternity IS the SSPX, the loyal SSPX who stayed with the "barque of Peter," the ones who continued the SSPX defense of tradition but within the structure of the Church. So where is their bishop? Haven't they been waiting all these years? Don't they have a seminary in the US (in addition to one in Europe) with more seminarians than a dozen US dioceses combined? Why don't they have a bishop to ordain those seminarians? Aren't they opening parishes, saying the Latin Mass around the world, including in Africa, and defending the traditional Catholic faith in a time of crisis when so many bishops and dioceses are in open apostasy? So why don't they have a bishop to lead them in these activities? When new auxiliary bishops are appointed every week to help destroy the faith in apostate dioceses, why has the Fraternity of St. Peter had to wait 16 years with no end in sight?
Excellent point. Well put.
Re: FSSP
Rome's view was always that a bishop for the Society wasn't necessary - since the FSSP didn't require one as a condition of reunion, they didn't get it.
Look at Campos, though. The agreement included a successor for Rangel, and a successor was indeed given.