You are conflating facts with your opinion. From a legal perspective, your points are - no offence - immaterial. What matters here is the legal perspective; your opinion is your own, and you're quite entitled to it (even if it is factually incorrect).
s2 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (RFA96) specifies who is a member of the Reserve Forces. ATC and CCF(RAF) Officers are - currently - commissioned into the RAFVR Training Branch (one of several branches). The RAFVR is a "division" (in the wording of Schedule 8 to RFA96) of the Royal (since 1997) Air Force Reserve (RAFR). The members of the RAFR are - according to s2 of RFA96 - therefore members of the Reserve Forces; ie reservists.
Being a reservist has nothing to do with call out or annual training liability, indeed RFA96 makes specific provision to exempt RAFVR(T) and TA (as was) General List B (ie CCF(A) and ACF) Officers from both. Being a reservist is simply about being - legally - a member of the Reserve Forces ...and, from the MOD perspective, that is the whole point of the Cadet Forces Commission; so that we are no longer - legally - reservists, and all that entails.
So, to say "CFAVs are not reservists" is utterly missing the point (as well as incorrect, in the commissioned case). The MOD would not be jumping through the hoops it is - and a tremendous rush (why?) - to introduce the CF Commission, were it not for this issue (can you imagine how much the staff work is costing?!). All has been well enough for the past 75 years (in the case of the ATC) for its Offrs to be commissioned into the RAFVR and therefore reservists; to have the level of activity on this matter that we have had for the past 4-5yrs, something(s) have changed, and those things are (a) employment law, (b) the reservist offer, and (c) the willingness of what we now call CFAVs to use - properly or improperly - the HR/Service Complaint system.
I believe that the MOD is - rightly - terrified that someone will launch (and probably win) a legal case in respect of commissioned - and possibly all remunerated - CFAVs legally being employees, and not volunteers; opening up the possibility of their having to pay - retrospectively - all that that entails, to all of those entitled. Thus the push towards the CF Commission, and probably also the rush to implement. The cost of the staff work will be less than the cost of a successful legal challenge (BTW, I am not suggesting that such a thing would be appropriate; but someone is clearly exercising the legal eagles at Head Office).
I make no judgement on your opinion, you are as fully entitled to it as I am to mine; but I happen - based on the facts - to disagree with you. I would simply add that the majority of CF Officers are under not illusions that, despite their being commissioned Officers in the Reserve Forces, their role is a world away from that of the reserves with a call out liability. However, I submit that the majority are also hugely proud of their membership of their respective service, and their commission. That does not equate to thinking that their role is something that it isn't.