Feeding Dependency doesn't affect Incite Emotion of full WCVs; it wouldn't make much sense having it affect Incite Emotion on a WCv.

Consider the following prefaced with 'in my opinion/interpretation' where not explicitly referencing RAW.

Part 1 applies to rolls where the goal of the roll is to lift/break an object, not where lifting/breaking an object is merely included in the narrative of the roll.

The suggested activities for your hopeful interpretation of part 1 represent ripe ground for modifying other rolls with Might (though some might be better represented by Might Restricting those rolls).  Throwing things around in a manner likely to cause harm to others is a function of Weapons.  Throwing really big things is likely Weapons Modified by Might.
In reference to the specific quote from Might, I interpret that to reference situations where the importance of physical strength is unusually prominent, as it's pretty important in most applications of melee combat.  In this way, just straight up punching a dude will never qualify, nor will any common variation thereon (swinging a baseball bat, sword, or other such implement, etc).
Trying to knock the feet out from under Tiny the Gruff?  Go right ahead and Modify.

Most definitely yes. Even as a stunt I'd keep it heavily restricted, like allowing a single additional attack or maneuver, toward the same target, at a penalty, and only with a specific weapon or something like that.

Off-hand weapon training is meant PRECISELY to represent multiple attacks against a single target.  Compare its effects for something close to reasonable balance (it's a finicky stunt that could use some tweaking to solidify its position, but it's more readily balanced than multiple actions).

Either way, they would all have pretty high narrative requirements - why the heck can your character do this? (As with Ivy above - She's the frikkin Archive, that's why )

Narrative restrictions are no substitute for mechanical balance.  CALLING a character powerful should not be sufficient to make them so.  They should have sufficient mechanical currency to back up that claim, and, if they do not, then they should not be able to act as though it were true (except in the sense of a bluff).

A (comparatively small or comparatively expensive) bonus on the post-split accuracy goes a long way to alleviating spray attacks' scaling issues.

It never should have been 'designed' as a block in the first place.
The fact that it's narrated as preventing action rather than inflicting harm has no bearing on the fact that the intended result is to remove a character from the conflict.  That is the effect of a Taken-Out result.

This is the same concept that models the summoning of Chauncy based on the difficulty to acquire the desired information rather than the difficulty to call forth, contain, and subsequently negotiate with the demon.

I'm confused by the position that, something that is essentially transitory despite the duration (like a Thaumaturgy block), should be paid with by Refresh when a wizard has paid Refresh for Thaumaturgy. Disallowing a concept because of a GM's sense of balance is one thing, but saying to a wizard player "you can't do a thing within your bought Powers without buying more Powers" is...? How is that justified?

A wizard that shapeshifts using Thaumaturgy such that they gain claws, wings, and significantly enhanced regenerative capabilities pays for those effects as though they were powers.
This is the same concept.

It's not a taken out result.  The duration is one decade, but he might escape in a few hours.

I'm having a hard time trying to adjudicate this kind of thing.

And when you knock a character out, they may wake up in a few hours.  That doesn't make that a block, either.
Unless the time scale of the conflict is sufficient that 'a few hours' out of commission would not constitute defeat, then you've achieved a taken-out result by default.

It is entirely possible that some as-yet-unknown entity quietly sponsors Kemmlerian Necromancy.  There does not, however, seem to be any reason to suspect that this entity interacts with practitioners of such magic beyond granting that power and then sitting back and watching it do what it does.

There was a reason I used words like "embodied, personified, or even known sponsor".