I believe that following the spirit and some of the suggestions of your eirenic posts would indeed facilitate a reconciliation based on agreement in the substance of the faith.
I believe that it could be possible for the OO to accept the documents of the latter councils as a start, with modifications to some anathemas that do not apply to those they were applied to. If such a large combined document were produced by both OO and EO with explanatory glosses to explain that certain phrases should be understood in a certain way and not in an heretical sense then such a combined document could be accepted by both sides as a statement of common faith.
This might well not be the last stage in reconciliation, but it would have required a recognition on the part of the EO, not always present, that there were real objections to Chalcedon which need to be answered, and it would require a recognition, already present in the synodal reception of the Joint Statements of the Dialogue, that the EO must be able to understand even Chalcedon in an Orthodox manner or there could be no possibility of their being considered Orthodox.
The actual historical event of Chalcedon remains problematic because although the document could be received, with an explanatory gloss, what is being asked seems to skate along the edge of the line of historical revisionism. If the EO were as honest as Fr John Romanides had been and studied this period with a view to exposing those issues which justified the OO rejection of Chalcedon, and if the OO sought to expose those issues which led to a misunderstanding of the OO position, and if both sides made clear where and when there were real heretics hidden under the cloak of pro and anti-Chalcedonianism then there may well be a way forward even on the historical value of Chalcedon.
One last thing. I think it needs to be remembered that the OO did not 'cut themselves off' as though there were a one-sided breach. Until 518 AD the Patriarchs of three of the great Sees were non-Chalcedonian, but after this period a severe and prolonged persecution of the non-Chalcedonians, with the deaths of tens and even hundreds of thousands of bishops, priests, monks and lay-folk, showed clearly that the Byzantine church authorities were willing to be complicit in the attempted ecclesio-cide which took place. At one point the patriarch of Constantinople urged more military activity against the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox so that they would be wiped out if they did not submit and even the Emperor had had enough of killing Christians and refused.
The OO of this period received Chalcedonians as easily as was consistent with their position, even clergy were on only a years probation, but the EO at this period insisted that none of the orders of the non-Chalcedonians were valid. I am not sure then that it is fair to say that the OO had separated themselves. They had no choice at all because the aim of the Chalcedonian party was the elimination of the non-Chalcedonians by any and all means including massacre.
I accept your point about Chalcedon, and it is important, but I think that a degree, a marked degree, of self-criticism by the EO is required to show that they are aware of the historical defects of Chalcedon, and that it was used as a cover for many folk who had heretical opinions, that it did indeed cause a major and mutual schism in the Church. On the OO side it would be necessary to look at the council with the sort of perspective of Fr John Romanides and find the best motives among the most bishops present. It will be difficult without honesty on both sides.
How would you feel about a document collecting together the material of the latter councils, removing the anathemas by using writings from those Fathers to show that they were not guilty of what they were accused of, and adding explanatory materials to answer the objections and difficulties of both sides.
If this document were made ecumenical by the OO so that all of these teachings were made necessary how would that seem to you.
Of course, unless you are posting under cover, I do not believe either of us are bishops or even priests, but we should still be interested and have informed opinions on these things.