On top of defining consciousness clearly and explicitly as you say, we could also reduce the number of theories with a few quick cuts: (1) authors with agendas, (2) theories incompatible with science, and (3) theories that disregard subjective experience (Dennett). Your conflation point is very well taken (what brings about consciousness and what consciousness is) -- it’s so easy to hide behind that. It’s odd people avoid defining consciousness. Perhaps consciousness, or the experience of it, is in the realm of pure private language? The best foray I’ve read is Antonio Damasio’s The Feeling of What Happens (1999). He says the brain maps the self and presents its map to the (conscious) mind. I take him to mean the brain builds a Cartesian theater, which seems more plausible than any alternative I’ve read. But that book is over 20 years old. I wonder if that idea has been developed or demolished?