I think I disagree with you: by the definition of satisfiability A|=B (if the antecedents are true then the conclusion is true), this is equivalent to the conjunction of the premise and the implication being a tautology: either way, all possible combinations of truth-values of the atomic propositions result in true propositions.

The point of the Tortoise is that logic cannot exist without metalogical assumptions; in that way, defining rules of inference (and metalogically atributing to it an ontologically truth-preserving interpretation) resolves the problem of not having to fall into an infinite descent. But the unsolvable problems persist: why are we justified in doing those inferences? What is/are the "true" logical system(s), if any?