"Woke" is too limited. It may be the current form of "aggressively conventional", but there were others before it, there will be others after it, and there are others than it right now.
Also, "woke" was once aggressively independent (probably before the term "woke" was used). Now it's aggressively conventional - though it may be a parody of what the independents meant.
But then where you place ‘woke’ in PG’s quadrant in itself is open to debate. Are trans rights activists ‘aggressively conventional’ for supporting the right to self-identify (in the UK at least a broadly popular position), or are they bold and independent minded for taking on more contentious positions, such as using the bathrooms of their identified gender without having undergone reassignment or take place in the sports of their chosen gender?
And if you can say someone can be both ‘aggressively conventional’ and ‘bold and independent’ where does that leave the tidy classification of the quadrant?
You seem to be trying to make PG's scheme a classification of positions, and it's not. It's a classification of peoples' behavior. The result is that most of your criticism is directed at something that is not actually PG's position.
Which is precisely why this framework is too reductive to be of any real explanatory value.
At some point, someone has to make the decision about whether someone’s motivation for wanting to be ‘aggressively conventional’ (PG introduces a new term here - presumably ‘woke’ is too inflammatory) is well-founded, or if they’re holding back necessary progress. PG seems to fancy himself as that arbiter, but I’m not convinced the argument is being made in good faith.