Would you be willing to sometime in the future do the "Bugnini shuffle" and make this for the Ordinary Form?

No, doubly so since those are in English. The person is asking for those to be cross-referenced or rearranged for the NO gradual’s assignments.

There will be gaps but not so many as to make it a silly request.

My piece of feedback would be that anything for Sundays and solemnities has a lot of gaps because of the deficiencies of the 1962.

Well how many days in your lifetime have you celebrated the Apostles & Evangelists on a Sunday? The answer is however many times Saints Peter and Paul falls on a Sunday. That’s it; this never happened before the reforms of the twentieth century; Some feasts are transferred to Monday every now and again, due to the seasons and now the feast of Christ the King, but the rest take the place of the Sunday as was the case two weeks ago, as was the case last year for St Matthew & St Bartholomew, as will be the case for Saint Mark in April, and Saint James in July.

Put it another way: fine, you consider the 1962 to be acceptable. But because you have made this choice, any church named for most of the Apostles & Evangelists cannot celebrate their titular feast with your book. The communion verses book in Latin & English has the same problem…

It’s also not clear what you mean by solemnity as the term isn’t used in the 1962 (it was for the second feast of St Joseph abolished in 1955). The Purification is reclassified as a feast of the Lord but remains II class. Exaltation of the Holy Cross is also II class.

Anyway the rite of Milan doesn’t even observe the abolition of the Comites’ feasts after Christmas when they fall on Sunday in the Novus Ordo, so that anyone holding that these reforms are not deficient has an uphill battle.

No. It’s not an odd critique, doubly so coming from me (@tomjaw and I both not only agree but have real lived experience of the pre-55 liturgy in full: it’s simply better). This is intended for the 1962 missal: we’re equivocating by saying TLM. I don’t encourage anyone to make pure 1962 resources, and even if you don’t include all of the commons or proper feasts, including from the get-go Apostles and Evangelists gets you a lot farther.

But I mean, I wasn’t rude. You don’t agree, but that wasn’t rude. You also don’t tell us what’s actually in the book, despite the problem that I mention. You, however, are rude about this.

Thank you for the resource, Richard - and the many hours spent working on it. 1962 is what is legislated and you have delivered a terrific resource for those who work obediently within its boundaries.

This was not an opportunity to insult other users of the forum as being obedient or disobedient respectively.

This is what I said above, but with the added point of external solemnities, never mind the titular (or patronal) feast. Just Apostles & Evangelists gets you a long way.