Well, trying to read, but you are covering a lot of territory, so some comments;

For one thing, I'm not a scientist, so my usage is what works for me, rather than having to incorporate the entire field.

I would tend to use conscious/consciousness primarily and awareness secondarily. As that basic individual organism's sentience would be the condition of being conscious, so to speak, while awareness would be more of a function. As in a baby would be conscious, but not particularly aware. That awareness would be more perception of the larger situation, rather than the essential quality of sentience, in the process of coalescing as a particular being.

As for the other qualities you've assigned consciousness, I would tend to simply refer to them as memory and imagination.

Feelings versus emotion, we are probably more on the same page. Feeling being an not fully defined thought, that might be about an emotion, or might be about anything else. "I'm feeling angry" would be an effort to contextualize the emotion of anger, so that I might cool off, much as "I'm feeling hungry" would be an effort to focus appetite and get something out of the fridge.

While emotion is more visceral and what we are at the time it is manifest. Though I don't do much anger. I was 5th of six kids and it wasn't an effective strategy.

The paper on the "hard problem" covers much more territory. Which I think our Western, object, individual oriented view confuses more than is necessary.

My more simplistic view is more of a node/network relationship, where some part of the dynamics are coalescing in, as others radiate out, organisms and ecosystems. So they exist as two sides of a larger coin.

When it's issues of what the group would do, as a larger, emergent organism, versus what the individual would do, the complexities and details would be infinite.

One example you used, apes versus humans reacting to fire. Most great apes live in temperate climates and have fur, while it seems to me, the initial benefit of fire would be warmth. I'm somewhat of the aquatic ape theory, as to why we lost the fur. So if there is a situation where there is a naturally occurring fire, it wouldn't be so much that one individual would go up to it and try figuring out what it might be good for, as that the group would sense its warmth and gather around it. Then one dummy would stick his hand too close and get burnt, while another might stick a piece of meat in it and burn that.

The permutations are endless.

Thanks for the conversation and while your view is that you've devoted your life to this, in my own way, so have I. Burnt my fingers quite a few times.