We are debating three questions simultaneously. One is whether conservatism can be defined ("state what conservatism is") and I think I've demonstrated that the core beliefs listed above accomplish that. Even simpler just believing in limited technology would match your 1 - 3.
Now we come to the second question of whether, in practice, there exist anyone meeting 1 - 3.
So for that let's discuss the book Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth. I'm a limitarian myself and I think not just extreme wealth but most things should be regulated - research, immigration, etc.
So I and many others on the left would meet your
(1) differs from liberalism,
(2) doesn’t imply Trumpism, and
(3) isn’t just a deeply incoherent, self-negating hodgepodge
However I don't call myself a conservative.
Now we come to the third question which is does anyone meeting 1 - 3 exist who also calls themselves a conservative.
I proposed the Amish and you are saying that all Christians are out because Christian theology doesn't meet 3) and that Christian theology will invariably infect their political stance in some way.
I'm going to further assume you will exclude the Baduy People for their Sunda Wiwitan folk religion etc.
However if we remove the religion part we get people like me or much more extremely Chellis Glendinning who don't call themselves conservative.
So seems like your thesis just boils down to traditional religions are incoherent. People collect religious beliefs over time and if they are not willing to adjust those beliefs they eventually become a self-negating hodgepodge.
Maybe that's true and maybe not. I haven't read the Sanghyang Siksa Kandang Karesian of the Sunda Wiwitan religion. Also even in America there are progressive Christian churches that are limiting how much of the hodgepodge they incorporate in their world view.
This third question is really the least interesting to me of the three and I'm not certain it's worth debating.