Generally the method is to manually link the source clips to a fresh bin in MC Ensure all the clips in that bin are selected. Then right click the sequence in its own bin and select relink. Choose the second option down relink to selected clips in open bins. You may then have to experiment with the other options.

Generally its not reccomended to rename files. With some formats it can really cause issues. But with simple generic files its less of a problem. Duplicate names aren't an issue as long as you also manage the location of those files. Some Post houses use Tape ID and copy the folder name (so there is a distiniction between files with the same name

I can confirm that downloading a dingle updater file is currently broken. I have in the past but currently it just doesn't work.

You could try an Avid AAF export imported in to PP but its not perfect and you risk hickups. If you can manage with the video baked down I'd export the AV as a flat track out of Avid bring into PP and then add graphics. If you need to keep the timelines complete with the clips etc then especially on the Audio side be prepared to test and test and

Most post houses have their own AQC software. Eyeball QC time is expensive and slow. So AQC first as it checks things like PSE loudness gamut etc. If no good why waste eyeball time.

A good workflow. I'd always do the AQC before the eyeball in case the AQC throws up any issues that need re exporting. Also guide creation of the for the dub and grade.

You could try using older display drivers and see if you can find one that's more stable. But with the GPU disabled you are using CPU to render so that may not be that much slower. Avid isn't very reliant on the GPU. I've used systems with mega graphics cards and ones with weak graphics card and barely noticed any difference.

I'd be very surprised if anyone can vouch for how reliable that workflow will be. I can't think of anyone working that way. Even if somebody else was working in such a non standard way successfully there are so many factors that affect working with thousands of Avid object rather than hundreds you ca only o for sure by testing the workflow.

To be honest this sounds like utter madness. Do they have no concept of what a Bin is? I'm also worried at your concern of managing such high volumes. You imply this is a standard workflow they have developed and used. If so they must know it works.

I think this topic is a real indication of Avids change in direction. Having worked in TV and broadcast for over 20 years supporting and using MC, I'm gobsmacked at the idea that titles as master clips in a bin are disliked. That's no editor I have ever worked with or supported. In fact the opposite has been my experience. Titles are assets