Agreed, but the Catholic system seems more internally consistent.
Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?
In fact, none of us knows. If we knew, then an act of divine faith would not be necessary. The Roman magisterial system is no more "rational" or "logical" than the Orthodox magisterial system. At some point, a divine act of faith is surrendered. We can all adduce our reasons and evidences to support that "special point," but we cannot escape the leap of faith.
I have to agree to a certain extent that there is indeed consistency and organization in the Roman Catholic system. That the Pope of Rome can convene councils in an efficient manner is very laudable. But consistency does not mean that Petrine primacy is true. The ancient church shockingly received her consistency from imperial authorities when convening councils and regulating behavior of bishops. It would seem that the occupation of "infallibility" in those times was not the Pope of Rome, but rather the emperor of Rome/Constantinople.
Someone else mentioned taking the last word on a council. If that was a definition of infallibility, the Pope of Rome, or even St. Peter himself, did not have the last word. In the council of Jerusalem convened by the Apostles, St. James had the last word. The council of Nicea, it seemed that St. Alexander had the last word. In Ephesus, St. Cyril had the last word.
The other question of infallibility is right doctrine. Well, in that case, many people can be considered infallible. St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazienzen, etc. These people expressed infallibility in doctrines.
Then I'm reading here the idea that conciliarity is an important prerequisite of the Pope's infallibility, i.e. the Pope isn't infallible unless the council agrees. But then what is the point of papal or Petrine infallibility? That seems to confuse me. I'm sure the East would agree that the Pope of Rome can take an authoritative role in a council, but if his infallibility depends no the council's bishops, wouldn't the idea of papal infallibility be pointless?
The structure seems consistent and well-organized, but the theological reasoning behind it actually confuses me and seems rather inconsistent in itself. I guess the question is, what really is "infallibility"? Why does it fall on a single person in addition to the councils?