I don't deny this, but the fact you guys appear to claim that:
- using j/p is the same thing as not using it - and of course, we're not talking about naming;
Most people use both I/E and J/P to describe functions with. The burden of proof is on you when you say only one of these is real.

- those are conclusions deductible from the Model A itself, that it's all what we need for finding them.
I don't claim such a thing. Like I said, there need to be introductions to the model for some of the Reinin dichotomies to be made to work.

Remember that Reinin thought that he concluded this exclusively from the available Socionics information (believing that XXXx <=> Model), he didn't find these traits outside, but made these combinations then tried to look for similarities in types. This is why this is so disputed, simply that these supposed similarities/traits are not to be found in real people - there is no empirical evidence for them.
Empirical evidence is generally scarce in socionics. Just that they are difficult to prove the existence of doesn't mean they aren't there. If there was evidence, Reinin would already be part of canon socionics, so what you say here is rather trivial.

My personal experience is similar, while I could see the correct dichotomies in real life - they jumped out in my face, actually - the others I could simply not find to be real, hence that Negativist example. And no, I was not looking for signs of "negativity" as in the general meaning, I specified you that I used the descriptions and the most careful I was in how they express quantities, remainders, and so on.
This means you have only eliminated one way in which the dichotomy could be interpreted. Time to move on to another.

One thing I recommend is not to use Positivist/Negativist and Process/Result in isolation, but to combine them to form quasi-temperaments; this helps to specify the characteristics more narrowly so that they are more fleshed out:
Positivist/Process/Static: "eureka" style of thinking; optimism in the belief that you can solve a problem
Negativst/Process/Dynamic: problem dwelling; trying your best to understand a problem
Positive/Result/Dynamic: oppurtunity based thinking; switching very quickly between promising ventures
Negativst/Result/Static: rejecting things you find that don't fit in with what you have

Whether these new dichotomies are there, I don't know, I couldn't find them so far and some I already dismissed experimentally. Don't get me wrong, I don't deny all, for some simply I could not find whether they are true or false, it would be a pity to dismiss them just like that. My only conviction is that this system build around j/p out of the void is wrong and it doesn't explain them. Some people call this "mental masturbation", it's good as an intellectual exercise and that's all, if you ask me, I am personally interested to find the things which are for real.
Well that's how I feel about your way of framing things. Maybe you should explain it again sometime.