Evidently "papal infallibility" became dogma in 1870 at the First Vatican Council. But obviously, by then, many "papal bulls" and such had already been written.
And it is apparent that some of those would be considered infallible whereas others would not be considered infallible.
The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions that, in order to be considered infallibile, whatever it is must be a definitive statement.
Elsewhere in the same source (though I have lost the url) it mentioned that the use of the term "anathema" in the writings of the councils was a determining factor in what is to be considered infallible. But it did not indicate that such a word usage was conclusive in reference to papal infallibility.
Also, now that the term "anathema" no longer is used since Vatican II - it raises the question anew as to how one knows what is or is not infallible from the documents which may proceed in the future from such councils.
In short, is there any source out there which presents a thorough and official review of all the historical manuscripts to itemize what is included/excluded as infallible doctrine and the reasoning behind it and lays out for the interested observer (e.g. me) the means whereby such infallible doctrine will be conveyed in the future?
Old Reggie says there isn't. He knows this stuff.