” and born in country (with the one exception of the repealed Naturalization Act of 1790).”
With the exception in Vattel that you already referenced - military personnel presumed to be under the de facto authority of the US Govt, regardless of where.
It would seem by extension you would have to provide the same exception for civilians serving in embassy’s or other official state functions.
All five examples given don’t seem to be actual items that can be cited as precedent in court. Unless you had somehow positioned yourself where you were actually asking the court to read the founder’s minds. My understanding is that the SCOTUS usually in matters like this, assert that it is up to Congress to legislate enforcement of the provisions of the Constitution. Our problem is that Congress has provided no current law that defines this requirement. It just appears to be too rare an issue to have motivated them.
As for the 5 SCOTUS cases, I didn't say they resolved this Constitutional issue, as no case has, clearly. What those cases do represent, though, is yet more historical evidence that the definition for NBC was that of Vattel's. Born in country, to citizen parents. They reiterated the same terminology.
As stated previously, there is no precedent for this exact situation. However, to determine the intent of the framers, one can look to the lopsided evidence for that definition, through various sources including a founder's writings, multiple SCOTUS dicta and the author of the 14th. Not to mention the Act of 1790 and resolution 511 stating citizen parentS.
Vattel covered that in the same paragraph as the "armies of the country" "exemption". It's paragraph 217 of Volume I (and of chapter XIX in the original French version) The basic "definition" is in paragrph 212 of the same volume and chapter.