Firstly, Paul was not "reigning over Peter (by correcting him)".
Probably because the MAD playbook doesn't have it all figured out and needs to keep adjusting their perspective upon further study.
Not the Cornelius types. He nor his family were NEVER called Jews, even though he was in Peter's territory. The Ethiopian eunuch was never called a Jew. I don't think any of the Samaritans that believed and we're prayed for by Peter ever became Jews or were called Jews, yet they were in his territory.
It certainly doesn't say the Jewish disciples were never called Christians in Jerusalem, yet you have used the silence of the scriptures to try to prove they weren't. You should probably stop doing that, as it makes people think your whole doctrine is faulty, despite the fact that:
Peter's Gospel is the Gospel of the Kingdom, not the Gospel of the Revelation of the Mystery (Grace). You can't be saved by the Gospel of the Kingdom. We are saved by Grace, not by repentance and water baptism.
But Peter and Paul were deciding not to go to each other's groups with their particular gospel, according to the MAD doctrine. If that's so, and Peter's gospel didn't save, then Peter was making it impossible for his group to be saved.
That would be right. How many people do you know today that are saved through repentance and water baptism?
Neither did Peter claim anyone would be saved through repentance and baptism. But if he deliberately prevented Paul from preaching Paul's gospel (the only one by which we can be saved), in order to preach a non-saving gospel, Peter is responsible for damning people to hell. If the two gospels are exclusive (Paul vs. Peter and the 12) then you've defined Peter's gospel as "another gospel" that Paul warned about.