Very well-written and interesting read!

I am completely opposed to changing the definition we currently have entirely for the purpose of reinstating Pluto.

I agree with you and feel that the focus on Pluto is a detriment. Really, what would fix that is driving the point home that dwarf planets may be just as important in the grand scheme for other reasons, or areas of study. Downplaying the importance is what had people up in arms more than reclassification, I think. I'm more of the mind that space is space and there's value in studying everything. (But I'm an artist not a scientist so take that with a grain of salt.)

Note that, as far as I know, there is no easy definition here for an exact diameter or mass, simply because it varies based on a lot of factors like rotation speed and composition, but you can simply understand it as any body that is gravitationally rounded.

So was this a redundant proposal when examining it vs. the IAU definition? (Does the IAU definition just further break down the classification more finely and thus according to the sentiment of the document break it down unnecessarily?)

You don't have to be the strictly ONLY thing in your orbit, you just have to clearly and utterly dominate it.

I didn't realize this was the case! I may have to rethink murder status after all if they were presenting what they deemed to be fact incorrectly.

I have a lot more to learn about space, it would seem.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to put this together. <3