I was under the impression that many OO hierarchs both historically and modernly, did not have a problem with the doctrine of Chalcedon (given some freedom of interpretation) so much as with what one might call the 'attitude' of Chalcedon.
While there are many Orientals today who will say that the doctrine of Chalcedon was essentially orthodox and misunderstood by the core Cyrillian party, this was far from the case historically. Particularly in the first few centuries following Chalcedon, the Orientals were convinced that Chalcedon had in fact compromised with Theodoreanism/Nestorianism. I think the current attitude that you are referring to is an abandonment of the historic Oriental teaching.
Certainly many OOs on here seem to think there is little that really separates us as regards doctrine.
I have had this same discussion a number of times already. In this issue, people fail to distinguish between the doctrine expressed by a religious body today and the doctrine expressed by the same religious body at various points throughout history, and given that, the possibility that they might actually not be substantially the same. Because of this, many Orientals are mistakenly lead to believe that if the doctrine right now expressed by your church appears to be orthodox, then it means that the Council of Chalcedon was orthodox. In avoiding this mistake, I would say that the doctrine I commonly hear expressed by those of your church right now, to the significant exclusion of some individuals, is essentially orthodox, whereas the doctrine expressed at Chalcedon was heterodox. Given this, our concurrence on doctrines now is a significant step towards reunion, but given the heterodoxy of Chalcedon, your church lacks pure orthodox continuity, and as such must not be accepted as if always orthodox, and must not be accepted while still recognizing Chalcedon.
I of course am no expert in this matter, but though personally I am happy in my assent to the Chalcedonian formulation, it seems to me reunification between EOs and OOs is, while perhaps more problematic than EOs and Russian Old Ritualists, certainly possible and much less problematic than EOs and Rome.
I agree that the Oriental and Byzantine traditions are very close and that the reunion of the two would not require much change. However, I don't go so far as many Orientals as to recognize your tradition as always having been orthodox, and thus that you can be accepted with absolutely no change of your official doctrinal formulation.
Also, I don't think this particular woman had much of an opinion on Chalcedon either way.
Many Oriental authorities are essentially becoming soft on the matter of Chalcedon and not even caring to educate their flocks on the matter anymore.