And yet... I think of what Kolokotronis has told me of the Orthodox, who also lack a central authority.
This makes me think that the weakness of the Anglican church as we have known it historically (I say this because I think that is coming to an end) has been the "Elizabethan Compromise" -- the forced melding of two rather different groups, the Evangelical and the Anglo-Catholic. We came to accept the fact that to be Anglican meant continual tension, that it meant to be in communion with those whom, well, you were in communion with them only because you have "always" shared this common label. And this has led to today's situation in the world-wide Anglican Communion, where the once unthinkable has become reality, and yet there is still an effort to preserve communion overall even though many jurisdictions have already declared themselves out of communion.
Historic Anglicanism doesn't have a quick-acting immune system.
But I am guessing this will come to an end and Anglicanism will divide and coalesce into three groups. The largest will be the Evangelical Anglicans; the REC and Network churches will be part of that group. Their self-authority will likely come to resemble that of the Orthodox.
Next will be the Anglo-Catholics, hopefully with a reunification of the various North American groups; it is possible this group will rejoin Rome as the TAC is even now attempting.
Finally there will be the apostates who will eventually just disappear.
I could be wrong, of course...
So could we all. But I suspect that the general lines of development will not be dissimilar to your estimate. The only issue is within the Anglo-Catholic stream. It is possible that certain lines of descent in that group will wither because some of the purposes for separation were not necessarily fully worthy. To the extent that any Anglo-Catholic communion keeps her ecclesial, liturgical and doctrinal eyes fixed on her Founder to the exclusion of all other purposes and intents, that communion will thrive.
As for union with Rome, my own preference would be autocephalous standing under a Patriarch with real authority to enforce doctrinal discipline. The issues of certain Marian and treasury of the saints doctrines would likely keep this communion chary of participating in Councils where RCC votes could simply carry the convocation by majoritarian weight of delegates. The issue there must certain refer to the degree of independent episcopal authority bishops subject to Rome would bring as delegates. To the extent that they MUST vote as Rome directs, to that very degree Rome should have rather limited participation by numbers. Perhaps a supra-House of Bishops would come into consideration, to reflect co-equality of Patriarchs rather than weight of bishoprics.
All very speculative and non-substantive, of course.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+