Sorry, I meant two say there are only two instances of a pope declaring something infallible ex cathedra, as exemplars of that criteria as specified by V1), one being before V1 and the other after V1. 

Of course there is much more that is understood as infallible. 

But the criteria by means of which we are expected to recognize a pope as specifically intending to exercise on his own (aside from a universal council) his prerogative of infallibility after V1 is "ex cathedra;" and the criteria we have a right to expect a pope to demonstrate when he intends to exercise his prerogative is "ex cathedra."

Ergo, when any pope after V1 states x, y or z, but does not do so ex cathedra, does not make his intend clear by solemnity and unambiguous words, those statements are non infallible. They may very well be magisterial and command some considerable level of assent, but that is not the same thing as infallible. 

Do we now agree?