Sorry, you are making up your own version of history again.
Any statement can be truthful or untruthful based on its interpretation, and any statement can be more or less successful in communicating truth. The idea that if something is understood by some people in a manner which is true then it must and will under all circumstances be understood in that way is manifestly false.
When a council is rejected it is on the basis of a particular understanding of it. When it is accepted it is on a particular understanding of it. A text is not objectively Orthodox, it is always the interpretation of a text which determines its Orthodoxy.
The authority of a text is determined by many other things as well as whether what is said is true. I could produce an Orthodox statement but I could not then send it to all the Synods and insist that they accept it on pain of being considered heretics. To accept a statement is to say much more than that it can be understood in an Orthodox manner, and more than that it is understood in an Orthodox manner. It must also answer some need in the Church in a manner which allows it to recieve a degree of authority.
All of the many Orthodox creeds are Orthodox. But there is only one authoritative creed. This does not mean the others have been rejected as being not Orthodox, but they are rejected as being not best suited to a particular end in the mind of the Church.
I might well be able to accept most of the text of Constantinople 553 as Orthodox but this does not require me to accept it as authoritative. Authoritative means more than Orthodox and true. If that were not so then everything which had ever been said which is Orthodox must be accepted without hesitation or criticism.
The Western Apostles creed is Orthodox in content but it is not used by Orthodox and not considered authoritative by Orthodox. Indeed the basis of the Orthodox understanding of the mind of the Fathers is not that everything anyone has ever written must be accepted as Gospel but that an authoritative consensus is determined by placing the writings of the various Fathers in context and in order of authority.
There are lots of synodal statements which are true but which have not adequately explained the faith. The Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church deals with many issues in an Orthodox manner, but the decisions are not binding on all the Church simply because they are synodal and orthodox. It is also entirely possible for a synod to proclaim some truth in a statement but proclaim that truth in an ambiguous and unsatisfactory manner which might even be considered as failing to exclude heresy.
There is no personal vendetta, but it is tiresome when you set yourself up as the arbiter of who is and who is not Orthodox, and insist that various Fathers and Churches have acted in error because they did not do what you think they should have done.
Your little comments like..
If a doctrinal statement is orthodox, then to deny it is to deny the faith.
appear to be designed to undermine the OO on many occasions, and to set up some false division between the EO and OO which is not there. I can easily reject the Definitio of Chalcedon but not because I deny any of the Orthodox content which the EO understand it to contain, but because I believe it fails to communicate that Orthodox content securely, and that it failed to exclude error. Since I manifestly do not deny the Orthodoxy that the EO see in the Definitio while also rejecting it as an authoritative statement your own statement is shown to be false, but you keep making it, and many others like it.