The OP's list is ten things that are necessary, but not sufficient, naturally.
I'll focus on my biggest gripe:
"Of all the 24th century Star Trek shows, Deep Space 9 has aged the best as a series because of its use of serialization and continuity."
That is a patently false statement. DS9 has not aged the best of the 24th century shows. Over half of it is completely unwatchable; I've tried, and recently. Anything good brought to the table by serialization and continuity is drowned out by the same sort of self-impressed navel gazing that caused TNG to run out of steam and that dragged down all post-TNG series.
If anything, of the 24th century shows, TNG has aged best, because it has the benefit of possessing seasons 3-5, before the tropes ultimately typical of all post-TOS Trek had calcified, plus the highlights of seasons 6 and 7.
Additionally, regardless of whether you agree with what I've said so far, because clearly you don't, you should recognize that the statement I've quoted is in fact a contentious statement. Furthermore, regardless of the reasons, whether it was franchise fatigue, self-defeating syndication practices, or whatever, general audiences watched more TNG than DS9. If there's any recent trend in rerun viewing that indicates that the present day market has changed its mind about which to watch more, I'm not aware of it.
Those two facts, the contentiousness and the ratings reality, should serve as primary indicators that you undermine your case that a new Trek series must have some form of serialization by extolling DS9, in particular above TNG. This fact:
"Now serialization is seen as a requirement by TV audiences, which means that question must be asked – what kind of serialization?"
is really the only one that matters. It certainly matters more than going back to the well that, like it or not, ran dry.