Hi,
Sorry: I responded to josephzizys before you, but your post was long and I wanted to read it all properly.
But, Mike, in my post on this in the other thread (couple years back) I wondered why Bhikkhu Bodhi spend so much time on arguing against this view… but now I’m wondering the same thing about myself! 
So I’ll let this one slide. 
Hope you don’t mind.
Just some quick final points, though, because I maybe oversimplified my suggested “translations”/interpretations. Even if we put it “because form is not fit to be regarded as self, it leads to affliction” it still doesn’t make sense to me. We might just as well say “because form is not fit to be regarded as a crocodile” it leads to suffering, and logically it would be just as valid the same. The way something is fit to be regarded is just not a logical precursor to suffering. It only makes sense if anatta meant something concrete, like it has no self agency.
Also, suffering is not a perception, surely. Otherwise, what exactly are we trying to overcome? It makes no sense that suffering would have been called a perception in the time of the Buddha (which the suttas never do, by the way) and only later it became regarded as a reality. Surely it was a reality from the get go. Same with anicca, and same with anatta.
Much metta and thanks for your thoughtful reply.
PS. On the featureless consciousness which you mentioned earlier, you may be interested in this: Viññāṇa anidassana: the state of boundless consciousness