I am familiar and have dug deeply into those topics. I understand the scriptural basis for each. My point is, and your reference to the scriptures etc hasn't refuted, the fact that these are dogmas that were officially add to the RCC Catechism centuries later and did not exist in the early church. One of the main difference, as I understand, between the EO and the RCC the approach development of doctrine. The EO would point to these as examples of dogma in the CCC today that simply didn't exist in the early church. They would also suggest that, if suddenly, St Peter were reading the CCC today he may be asking where those came from?
Well, St Peter, they came some 1800 years later when the RCC started adding them out a concern they had a conundrum.
1854 Immaculate conception- as a result of being consumers with the original sin doctrine and to eliminate the possibility that Jesus was exposed to original sin in Mary's womb.
-1870 Vatican 1 Papal infallibility
And then
-1954 Assumption of Mary because, well it is sort of required by immaculate conception.
I know you can point to some tradition and reference some saints on each of these but not as far back as the first century. So, my point remains these point to a difference. The EO, to my knowledge, rejects these making them, at least on these issues, more like the original church.