Nope. Conventionally, Yogacara accepts matter and mind as distinct and separate phenomena.
Samvrti means "hypocracy, obstructed, occluded" not "conventional."
Vyavahāraḥ means conventional.
The Buddha never taught a shared consensus or linguistic reality. He certainly never taught an existent discrete material reality.
That's quite debatable.
The Buddha never taught a reality outside of phenomena.
Agreed, all phenomena are included in the six elements.
How things appear is how things appear to the mind only. For the yogi, facticity never goes beyond appearance. This is very well stated by the Buddha in the Third Turning Sutras and the Yogacara taught by Bhagavan. So there is no mind/matter dualism in the Sutrayana.
There is, at the conventional level.
For a yogi, consciousness is not a mere potential that emerges from matter. That is the classical western materialist and scientific view.
It is, in the same sense that scent emerges from a flower. For example, Sachen Kunga Nyingpo writes in his seminal Notes on the Ālaya
"Mind and matter bear the same relationship as a scent and a flower."
Yogacara, sutras and tantras share the same view, that matter and consciousness are one thing, mind.
This may be true of sngags gsar ma, and certainly this is how Khyentse Wangchuck seeks to the resolve the issue (unsatisfactorily in my mind) in his commentary on the view of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana.
The issue of vayu is the same. There is no wind apart from movement. There is not fire apart from heat. There is no earth apart from solidity or water from wetness.
Agreed -- yet these are the basic constituents of the rūpaskandha, the aggregate of matter.
It is how these appear to the senses that makes them elements, not that they are the basic parts of matter.
Disagree. All material things possess these four qualities in some mix. Take notice, I am not arguing for these as ultimate realities.
What makes it Yogacara is when in direct yogic perception you see what is most fundamental, pure awareness is at the base, and there are no phenomena there. In post-absorption, phenomena clearly emerge from consciousness and thereby appear in their true form as maya.
Prior to analyzing phenomena as mind-only, mind and matter are conventionally regarded as a dualism even in Yogacara. Why, because the imputed nature is exactly the conventional world.
Also in standard Madhyamaka, on the conventional level mind and matter are regarded as distinct.
While the annutarayoga tantras move in the direction of dissolving the distinction between mind and matter, the substance dualism in Buddhism is only satisfactorily resolved in Dzogchen (but not by regarding all phenomena as mind-- which is a point of view rejected by Longchenpa incoherent).
In Dzogchen, mind and matter are regarded as seamlessly welded, not that mind has primacy over matter. Dzogchen texts even go so far as to reject the formless realm as truly formless.
This is why for example the Khandro Nyinthig states very clearly "Sometimes we say "citta", sometimes "vāyu",but the meaning is the same."Vāyu is just the element of air i.e. motility present in matter. This also accounts for rebirth. In the Guhyasamaja, for example, the ālayavijñāna is wedded to the mahāprāṇavāyu -- this union allows rebirth to happen.
Mind and matter are inseparable from a tantric point of view. Your view reduces the tantric view of mind and matter to the level of sūtra, in my opinion. I take the unpopular stance (according to standard Tibetan orthodoxy ala Sapan, et al) that the view of tantra regarding these kinds of issues is superior in every respect to that of sūtra, and Dzogchen even more so than tantra. The view and practice of tantra and Dzogchen has been crippled in Tibetan discourse by a need to justify everything according to sūtra.