“Life is what happens to you while you are making other plans”.
It may wind up being the same on your second list, but since you ask…
Regarding number one, if what you are talking about is the framework in which we seek answers then I agree. For example we should dialogue on the basis of reason, in an honest manner, and treat each other with respect when this is done. I am “down for the struggle” with that. If it is a unity on specific answers to the question, well drives for “unity” of position have ever been the bane of truth discovery.
Number two is a given in that it is most reflective of who you are. This comes through even while you stay “agnostic” on specific answers. I endorse it fully.
I don’t think you can stick with number three. You are bringing the two-population model to the fore, and it is one of the distinctives here and will be regardless of whether you adopt some formal rule of “neutrality” or not. That that it should be a requirement or anything, but it is a distinctive that you are offering to the debate on theology and science. And the church needs that whether they recognize it now or not because its what the text says and its what the record of nature allows.
BioLogos is “theologically neutral” and it winds up just being a place to try and browbeat Christians to believe evolution occurred while shying away from theological content. I think the openness should be more out of an effort to have, on non-essential issues, the “educated mind” of Aristotle who said such a mind was marked by the ability to entertain ideas with which one did not agree. This dovetails into a call for a return to theology returning to its roots as a type of science, distinct from natural science, but using similar methods on different subject matter.
I don’t feel much qualified to comment on number four.