But it seems quite obvious that she actually does not have the power to do that. She doesn’t even have the power to resign, she tried and China said no.

Their demands also include permanent legislative independence from China. Something they obviously don’t have today, and will have less and less as China continues it’s stated policy of continuing the complete integration of Hong Kong into China.

Any level of autonomy Hong Kong has is granted entirely at the discretion of China, and is only temporary in any case, as it has an expiry date. It’s exceedingly obvious to any observer that Hong Kong does not currently have sufficient autonomy to satisfy the protestors demands.

Which she has declared to have been withdrawn.

No, it has been suspended. Withdrawn is a separate state. If the government in the future want implement this again, it is a lot less effort to continue a suspended bill rather than a withdraw. The difference is that with a withdrawn bill the legislative process needs to start from zero while a suspended can just be "unsuspended".

She declared it "dead" which is not a legal term.

Yes, but politicians speaking to the press often speak in a non-formal manner. At any rate the bill appears not to be under active consideration at present.

Doesn't matter; the government can still resume the second reading with only a few days notice and then rush through the bill within 24 hours, unless it is formally withdrawn.

Has not been formally withdrawn.