What is the test for proximity in Caparo, and is it really three-stage?

Question I keep getting from people prepping for FHS Tort:

Is Caparo really still a three-stage test, or did Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018) overturn it?

My reading is that Robinson didn't overturn Caparo — it relegated it. The current position seems to be:

1. First, look for established categories (employer/employee, occupier/visitor, doctor/patient, road users to each other, etc.). If the case fits one, the duty is settled. No Caparo analysis needed.
2. If no established category, look for incremental analogy to existing duties.
3. Caparo as last resort. Only when (1) and (2) don't resolve it does the foreseeability + proximity + fair-just-and-reasonable framework actually do work.

Questions for the room:

• Have I got that right? Anything I've missed?
• For FHS / mods / collections, what authority do tutors expect you to lead with — Caparo or Robinson?
• Does anyone have a clean way of stating the relationship between the two without a 200-word digression?

If you've got a worked answer that scored well, post it (your own work only).