Paul,
I and the model have no issue with any of your comments. I'm not then certain what you mean by "where the problems are". Perhaps if you think there are problems in the model itself you might be specific about where. But if you refer to the current paradigm I have only one quibble.
You suggest "how light works is obviously important, per se, but has no relevance to the fault in relativity." I have described the proposition that the assumption that the characteristic 'absolute' (one only) is tied to the concept of 'background frames' which Einstein assumed in deriving the Relativity of Simultaneity underpinning SR, is false. This is clearly the case as we have confirmed for instance that light on Mars does c wrt Mars not c wrt Earth! It has not however been assimilated so is 'swept under the carpet' with all the other inconsistent facts!
Now as this is at least indirectly about how, or 'THAT' light 'propagates' at c. so at c in the LOCAL background, than we could say it IS relevant to that particular fault in relativity. When corrected we find that the quantum mechanism of propagation (atomic scattering at c) actually PRODUCES the relativistic' effects directly!! I clearly couldn't then be classed as 'irrelevant'.
Now I can agree it has less DIRECT relevance, and that there are other faults, but to say it is irrelevant is to potentially miss the critically important matter of the assumption used for the Rel of Simultaneity. It is important to highlight that point as almost all have missed it, as if some intellectual block is implanted in their brains, so the confusion remains. I know you'd grasped it previously, but with so many it 'slips away' easily amid the ('garbled' as John says) confusion of current beliefs.
To see grasp and retain the simplicity hiding in the pile of confusion is not easy.
I've now first read your essay, improved from last year, and will comment soon.
best wishes
Peter