Note: I'm very much open to input on how to handle future installments in the series. In particular, I'm not sure how much information to try to cram into one post (this could've easily been two),

FWIW, this seemed like a good level of information density for a single post, though that impression might depend on the fact that most of the material isn't new to me.

and I'm not sure if the next post should cover nonevidentialist epistemologies, or if I should just skip straight to skepticism.

I'm not sure what I could tell you that would legitimately contribute to your confidence one way or the other.

That said, I will admit that I've never entirely understood how reliabilism/causalism is supposed to be anti-evidential in the first place (doesn't the existence of a reliable/causal process for generating true beliefs count as evidence for the truths of the beliefs generated by that process?), so I may be something of a lost cause in that area.