You have 3 but wrong on all counts.
Accepts the primacy of Orthodox Judaism to establish the Canon of scripture (and yes, there are references for this in scripture, ie., Moses' seat, to whom belong the scriptures) after Jesus' Advent
Illogical. You argument is like that of Catholics who argue that concurrence with their church on the NT canon means acceptance of her authority, which is absurd. The importance relevance of the Palestinian canon is that it both testifies against the LXX containing the Deuteros or of that establishing a canon, and that tripartite canon of those who sat in the seat of Moses being the one Christ referred to as "all the Scriptures." (LK. 24:27.44)
Rejects that Jesus gave the power to bind and loose that belonged to Moses' seat to the Apostle Peter (and the other Apostles)
It does not, and in face SS (such as the Westminster Confession) affirms the authority of councils to Scripturally settle disputes. However what it rejects is the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, so that its judgments must be correct.
That was neither promised, exampled, or presumed in giving authority to those mortals who were given authority in the OT and in the NT. Nor to civil authorities who can also render like binding judgments, but which does not mean they cannot be wrong and so dissent is warranted. That of Acts 15 was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Rejects Orthodox Christianity in favor of reformed, restorationist, or reconstructionist authorities.
And the NT church began upon Scriptural dissent from those who actually did sit in the seat of Moses over Israel, as the magisterial stewards of Scripture, and it the faith of that church and the books they referred to as Scripture, "It is written," Moses said," etc. that we are to follow. Rome is who much rejects that in favor of reformed, restorationist, or reconstructionist authorities.