Your ideology can best be described as incoherent and contradictory, politely I genuinely have no idea what your end goal is

Hey, I enjoy seeing a discussion of ideas like this! I feel like socialists can be reluctant to talk in concrete terms on how they'd like the world to change. I suppose that could be a tactful way to maintain solidarity, since I'm sure there are vehement disagreements when we get into details. I'm also told that the goal is not to hand out a prescriptive vision of the future, but that instead it's important for a class-conscious working class to form its own system based on its own experience. But surely working class people like us bouncing ideas around is part of the process of forming a class consensus?

I also lean toward a market economy because I haven't seen an alternative yet that I'm convinced would be better. Markets are a way of distributing intelligence. It seems like centrally planned economies have a harder time anticipating what's needed, invite corruption and ass-covering, and can lead to a different kind of hierarchical power imbalance where the people planning the economy have similar control to capitalists. But there are problems to solve with any of the options. In a market economy, even if all businesses are worker-owned and wage exploitation can be eliminated, there are still problems with consumer and environment exploitation. Like there might still be incentives to sell unhealthy food, to extract resources for short term gain. Each cooperative or industrial union could be incentivized to maximize the profit of their own business or industry. Certainly regulation is one way to address this. OTOH if industry is managed by large groups of workers instead of by a handful of sociopaths, maybe conscience would end up being a more powerful regulating force than it is under capitalism.

My thoughts on some of your points:

• 1. I'm not clear on what a planned market economy looks like. Do you have any references?
• 2-6. Sounds pretty good to me. I've had thoughts along the lines of all private companies being mandated cooperatives. You could run a sole-proprietorship and have full control, but once you have employees they need to have a fair share in profit and decision making.
• 7. Why would one party act as the main social institution? I agree there should be space for a diversity of ideas, and having multiple parties is probably the way to do that. But what is the framework for multiple parties in a one-party system? In Russia in the 1920s the Communist party actively suppressed parties-within-the-party, such as the Workers' Opposition. Probably so the party leaders could maintain control. I'm not super well informed, but I haven't heard about party diversity later in USSR history, or in other single-party states. To this day "factionalism" is still a dirty word to some socialists. (I get the impression that view might be influenced by Marxist-Leninism, but again I'm not super well informed, so I don't know for sure.)
• 8. There definitely needs to be worker organization to balance the state. Especially in the transition period, capitalists will resist giving up power through, among other tactics, capital strike. Workers need organization to keep industry running where necessary to keep people's needs met while capitalists try to sabotage the system. I recently read an interview with Mike Parker on this that I thought was interesting. Longer term hopefully the state will be a fair reflection of the needs of all people. But having multiple systems of organization to check each other seems like a good idea.
• 9-10. Of course!

Back on point 7, I think I might have a different picture in mind of what a transition to socialism looks like. I think in principle the democratic systems that we have work as a political framework. There is a lot we can do to change those systems to make them better, such as the reforms presented in https://www.dsausa.org/dsa-political-platform-from-2021-convention/?ref=redstarcaucus.org#deepening, and proposals for proportional representation. And of course wealthy elites have way too much power currently. But I think that disproportionate power is an economic and social problem. My thinking is we don't need a political revolution, we need a social revolution. Shift the view people have of extreme wealth from inspiration to disgust. Cultivate enough outrage to ban corporate money in political campaigns, to break up media monopolies, to tax and fine capitalists into oblivion, to force a combination of worker and state ownership of private industry. Maybe there is no way to strip power from billionaires except at gunpoint. But the social pressure of millions, or billions of people is immense. I think we can do it mostly non-violently.