Rawls's view that inequalities are morally permissible if they result in a net-benefit to the most disadvantaged members of society.

I haven't made a close study of Rawls, but what I know inclines me towards an interpretation under which the difference principle is a prediction about what agents would agree to behind the veil of ignorance, and only via their agreeing upon it does it gain moral force.

consequentialism and deontology are mutually exclusive and exhaustive

I don't think they are necessarily either of these things. You can have considerable overlap - even doppelgangers blur the lines - and you're neglecting virtue ethics, which doesn't have a clear allegiance with either.

n act is morally permissible if it (or if its rule, under RC) yields results that are maximally good.

This neglects satisficing theories, and (depending on how strict you mean this to be) theories that talk about things other than acts or rules.

Deontology is the belief that something can be morally permissible even if it does not promote the best consequences.

Defining deontology in terms of consequentialism is something I'd like to avoid.