Its no easy thing to have a product range that differentiates features by price. If all the really great stuff was in the base product how can you have a premium level?

I presume Avids line is that if a 3rd party emulates Nexis then it will work (because it works with Nexis) if the 3rd party storage isn't emulating nexis completely or accuratley then it won't work as required. But thats not Avids fault. I'm not even sure how Avid could resolve that.

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.