Actually no, sorry to say, but those are not merely the objective standards that the Church herself uses and has used for giving an objective standard to the ritual of the liturgy. Your statements show that you don’t really grasp this point. Take some time perhaps to be more objective and look at the standards that Cardinal Ottaviani used to critique the New reform of the Liturgy. He was a man well versed in the mind of the Church. He may have known something about the standards the Church gives in this regard and it isn’t merely "Is it Valid, licit, is there Eucharist.’
‘Novus Ordo Missae–considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted–represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.’ And as a consequence he concludes that ‘“the true Catholic, by the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, is faced with the tragic necessity of a choice”. -
Commenting on this intervention in more recent times Cardinal Stickler stated that “The analysis of the Novus Ordo made by these two Cardinals has lost nothing of its value, nor, unfortunately, of its timeliness. … The results of the reform are deemed by many today to have been devastating. It was the merit of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to discover very quickly that the modification of the rites resulted in a fundamental change of doctrine.” - November 27, 2004, on the occasion of a reprint of the Ottaviani Intervention.
What is more, perhaps consider these words of Michael Davies and the reference he makes ;
‘It would be impossible to exaggerate the importance of Father Fortescue’ s insistence that in composing new services the Protestant Reformers “broke away utterly from all historic liturgical evolution”. In 1898, referring to the reform of Cranmer, the Catholic Bishops of the Province of Westminster insisted that local churches are not entitled to devise new rites:
“They must not omit or reform anything in those forms which immemorial tradition has bequeathed to us. For such an immemorial usage, whether or not it has in the course of ages incorporated superfluous accretions, must, in the estimation of those who believe in a divinely guarded, visible Church, at least have retained whatever is necessary; so that in adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure: whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential . . . that they were permitted to subtract prayers and ceremonies in previous use, and even to remodel the existing rites in a most drastic manner, is a proposition for which we know of no historical foundation, and which appears to us absolutely incredible”. - The Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Province of Westminster, A Vindication of the Bull “Apostolicae Curae” (London, 1898). p. 42.