"It is just as easy to see the fact that bread is bread, leavened or not. Canon 32 is silent on this and so should we be."
That's your opinion. In the Church, we do not have the luxury of personal opinions on such matters as this. According to St. Photius the Great, the use of azymes is not a minor matter. No father prior to St. Photius that I know of said, "This is but a minor matter", or words to that effect.
I do know that there was/is room for some flex in the Church as to uses from diocese to diocese, but not as to what is or is not the matter of a sacrament. The only flex I am aware of as to the matter of a sacrament has to do with baptism in extremis. But even there, such baptisms are to be reported to the authorities and may, under certain conditions, have to repeated entirely because they are not up to standard and so not baptisms at all.
First, I still cannot see how you can claim that Trullo was an Ecumenical Council. Beyond that, your interpretation that Canon 32 requires unleavened bread is a personal opinion, and one that is far fethced as far as I am concerned. You are reading into the canon something that it simply does not say.
With regard to Patriarch Photius, it seems to me that you are giving to him an infallibility that you are denying to the pope. Why should the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople be held in higher regard than that of the pope.
That being said, however, it may come as a surprise to you but Photius never condemned the West for the use of unleavened bread. That was first done by Patriarch Michael I in 1053 when he closed the Latin churches in Constantinople. Thus for hundreds of years no one thought that it was a serious matter. The novelty was the condemnation of Patriarch Michael.
And what prior Father stated that it was a major matter?