I agree with your point about 1a. If the Assembly passes two pieces of legislation that are contradicting, it falls to the Courts to reconcile said contradiction. Any time there is legislation that contradicts another piece of Law, it falls to the Courts to resolve that issue.

Here's a thing about the Charter language, and use of "may". Let's use the CoA as an example. As you quoted, the Chair is responsible for all aspects of drafting, debating, and passing law. That means the Chair has an obligation to make it so that any piece of legislation can pass.... not possible if you don't put something up to vote that has been motioned, and seconded. So "may" is more like giving permission, not like saying "you can if you want". It's saying, once proposed legislation has received a Motion and a Second, then you may (are now allowed to) move it to a vote.

This is also why we have recalls. If the CoA were to use their personal discretion as to what gets actually moved to a vote after a motion and a second, as opposed to doing it with every piece of Legislation (which is their moral and legal obligation, they would very quickly get recalled by the very Assembly that elected them. Checks and balances.