Holy shit there's someone out there with good taste.
But nah, I don't rank SC these days because I find it impossible to compare to the rest of their catalogue. I used to have it as top three. I will say that the title track is my favorite off that record, but I wouldn't say it's the best of their '10s music (that would probably be A New Dawn or Voices).
I'm not sure I could argue that SC is objectively good or bad because as the late Lou Reed once said, you either like it or you don't. It's not rocket science. It just happens to click just right with me. That's why I cringe when I see some of the positive reactions that try to justify why it's good, because I actually don't agree with a lot of them. Some of the songs on that record don't really work or needed more time in the oven (In Plain View, Everything's Gone, Rusted Nail). Anders doesn't sound fantastic on some of it. But the rest makes up for it, for me at least.
What makes me cringe is the people who say SC, Battles, and ITM are a string of good IF albums, or that they're in any sense a trilogy or a series. As a SC fan I refuse to group it with Battles and ITM. SC was an experimental effort and you can argue whether it worked for you or not, while Battles and ITM were retreats into design-by-committee music (less so with ITM, which was a step in the right direction).
I think that's a fair summary of your position and I'd agree that SC doesn't really fit in with the rest of the IF catalogue at all, which is why I've always said it would have been better released as a side project. It would have been weird to do so, though, considering it was the same band members.
It's interesting that the title track is your favourite - it really bothers me how the verse vocals and instruments aren't in tandem at all. I actually find it difficult to listen to. The chorus has some merit but doesn't necessarily feel like it fits in with the rest of the song when I listen to it. The song as a whole is quite chaotic structurally. I guess that works for you though!