Do you expect to line up every singe OO from the 5th century on and personally ask each one if they knew every document on Leo's database (other than the Tome) existed?
All the OO writings from Chalcedon onward only addressed Leo's Tome. If they knew or read Leo's other writings, they would have at least mentioned something somewhere.
Maybe they might not mention them because they didn't find them important?
For example, Mina said that Leo wrote a letter translated especially for the Palestinian audience.
It reminds me a bit of the question of why the early Church writers didn't mention some 1st c. writings, sayings of Jesus, or important facts of church history, if they knew of the writings, sayings or facts.
To the best of my knowledge, Leo's other writings are completely absent even in the most polemical and most moderate OO treaties. As I said before, Leo wanted his Tome to be the end all document anyway. Why do you expect anything more from OO?
I don't have a particularly strong expectation that they would mention other writings by Leo if they knew of them.
Put it this way, if I wrote a document that you felt was heretical and threatened you with death if you didn't believe it, can I expect you to read my other documents when I said the initial document is the ultimate document?
Supposing you were going to take me on and debunk me, I would expect you to look at my other writings to make collateral attacks undermining my position.
Sorry, I am not sure what is the broader implication you are trying to draw, Remnkemi. Is your broader point that if they had read his other writings, they would be more likely to see him as not Nestorian?
Your standard or expectation for OO's is illogical while your standard or expectation for condemned heretics is very accommodating.
In the EO Church, Severus, Dioscorus, and Theodore M. are condemned heretics, the accusation being that they taught opposite extremes of related issues (one nature alone out of the two - divinity and humanity after the incarnation vs. two totally separated persons after the incarnation).
Instead, I am open to OOs asserting the belief in one divine-human nature after the incarnation, and in looking for a consistent approach that would not see these figures as heretics in their persons.
The way I see to do that is to look for their orthodox statements and concepts (retaining full divinity and humanity, and there being one hypostasis after the union, there being one single person alone after the incarnation, etc.) that directly contradict any heretical statements or concepts (eg. rejection of dyophisitism, teaching of two hypostases, teaching that the one nature was only divine and didn't remain human, etc.) , and then to conclude that in their persons they agreed with the orthodox statements and concepts.
You have the right to believe what you want to believe.
That's true for unfortunate schisms.