@Dcleve I think that the problem with our conversion is you may be starting with your own foundational assumption that I am incorrect. The paints you into a corner of a false assumption.
@polcott -- the W selection you linked just explained how "correct logical system" is logically inevaluatable within any logical sysstem, as it will lead to contradictions.. And your assertions about what such a system consists of are boundary definitions, also inevaluatable.
And as you yourself were advocating for a CHANGE in what logic consists of, your repeating now the words "it all boils down to sound deductive inference" is an obvious falsehood, because soundness can only be evaluated WITH REFERENCE TO A TRUTH CRITERIA! Once more, you don't pay any attention to what you read, or the errors that anyone else points out to you.
@Dcleve The truth criteria (that you seem to persistently ignore) is that analytical knowledge is a set of relations that have been stipulated. In simpler words analytical knowledge is a set of expressions of language that have been assigned the semantic property of Boolean true. We just look them up and if they are on the (algorithmically compressed infinite) list then we know that they have been defined to be true. That is the ultimate foundational basis of their truth.