You have every right to call things what you choose, Joshua. But Secular Buddhists will probably continue to identify themselves as Buddhist. In fact those who follow Stephen Batchelor's line will say the Theravada tradition is NOT true Buddhism, that it suffers from translation errors that fundamentally distorted the Buddha's message, and also that the elements you describe such as karma and rebirth and so forth were NOT part of the Buddha's message at all but rather muddied their way into the Buddha's recorded teachings over time. Batchelor suggests this happened as part of an attempt to better conform the new "religion" to the widely accepted and deeply engrained soteriology in India thought.
That is all fair enough, and I have no dog in this fight. I read Buddhism Without Beliefs sometime--oh--ten years ago perhaps. I seem to recall that his views on the prevalence of rebirth in Indian thought at the time of the Buddha were somewhat controversial. But I may be mistaken in that.
What will be really helpful is to have not one outline, but three; Theravadin, Mahayana and Secular. And I will happily yield to whomever shall take the lists (pun intended!)