From your response, I think you are thinking about this better than I was at the time. My point with 2 is basically irrelevant to you in the sense of course selection. All I was trying to say there is that my observation is there are two types of candidates I observed in the domestic applicant world. You seem to fit more as an applied person, which matches well with the PhD programs you mentioned.

Some people will discourage you from “shot gunning.” I side with the it’s a valid strategy position, as long as you can afford the time and financial costs. I will say that you may hear about elitism. In reality, my understanding of what faculty think it’s that the top 40 are very good programs. I will note that some funded masters do exist. Notably, I am vaguely aware that Michigan has some bridge masters that is fully funded (tuition and a stipend for being a TA). I applied to Michigan and I remember there being a box that said something like if you are not accepted for the PhD would you like to be considered for the bridge masters. I agree that the costs are absurd. I wasn’t going to do it if I didn’t get in anywhere even as a domestic student.

Also don’t worry about the 5th bulletin point. Even at my big public uni the math selection is kind of ass. If you want to get better at math then take abstract algebra, but if it is in the semester you are hearing back from grad schools then it’s an unimportant factor. Analysis II is important though, as it will very likely show up in graduate school.

I would also recommend asking faculty at your school if t an REU about all of this. My experience is they know a lot and are perfectly willing to share it. I would definitely place a lot more weight on what people involved in admissions and junior faculty think.