Fides et Ratio is indispensible for my understanding re. what you are sketching out. Despite our differences (because of them?) I am a big admirer of you and the celebrated Mr. K.
For what it is worth, I'd prefer the Latin Rite Rules to be minimized and simplified; all the rules/regulatons/rubrics concerning Liturgy. Were I Pope, I'd rewrite all Liturgical Rules/Regulations so they could fit on an index card, reform Seminaries to teach authentic Liturgy and let the Bishops have full authority (orthodoxy assumed) to do as they desire in their Jurisdictions.
However, I subordiante my personal preferences to the Magisterium but, not without noting (I can't remember where I found this)...
oops, company arriving. I'll post later
*I was doing some reading this a.m. It turns part of my personal opinions match a piece of Cardinal Ratzinger's ideas about Liturgy.
Ratzinger Report
Prior to Trent a multiplicity of rites and liturgies had been allowed within the Church. The Fathers of the Council of Trent took the liturgy of the city of Rome and prescribed it on the whole Church; they only retained those Western liturgies which had existed for more than two hundred years. This is what happened, for instance, with the Ambrosian rite of the Dioceses of Milan. If it would foster devotion in many believers and encourage respect for the piety of particular Catholic groups, I would personally support a return to the ancient situation, i.e., to a certain liturgical pluralism. Provided, of course, that the legitimate character of the reformed rites was emphatically affirmed, and there was a clear delineation of the extent and nature of such an exception permitting the celebration of the pre-conciliar liturgy…Catholicity does not mean uniformity…it is strange that the post-conciliar pluralism has created uniformity in one aspect at least: it will not tolerate a high standard of expression…