Delta x,y,z Rinc and alt vup vtot for target - Don’t know if it define fully a proper orbit or not like with standard parameters

Okay, let's take some time to explain this issue, as it's going to haunt us otherwise...

What, exactly, is Rinc for instance?

You certainly know that the orbital plane of an object can be specified by inclination and the longitude of the ascending node, so if we have two orbiting objects, each has their plane, and the angle between the normals of these planes defines the relative inclination. Right?

Unfortunately, in J3 gravity, inclination isn't constant. It changes with latitude - as you go to higher latitudes, the equatorial bulge of Earth tends to pull you further inward than you'd be in spherical gravity. That means, if you have two objects

in the same orbit with one just crossing the equator and one reaching the highest latitude (so they're a quarter of an orbit separated), they will have

different inclination in spite of the fact that they are

in the same orbit. But if you wait for 1/8 orbit, you'll find that they have the same inclination - waiting further will reverse the sign of Rinc - there will be an oscillation around a mean value of 0.

So

if you accept a definition of Rinc as the angle between the local plane normals, you'll have the unfortunate result that Rinc = 0 does not necessarily mean the objects orbit in the same plane, and Rinc > 0 may mean that they do. [1].

Which means, unless you're fine with being ~50 km off at rendezvous, the above definition of Rinc isn't very useful. A better one can be constructed on the notion of parallel transport - you follow the chaser orbit to the next crossing with the target orbit and compute the angle under which the tracks cross at that point. Note that this happens to be a fairly useful definition in practice, because it specifically investigates the nodes at which you'd do any correction burns. It also means that if you are in the same orbit, it will actually be zero.

But it also means that Rinc isn't a continuum of values at all times, it's a discrete value valid from one crossing to the next. In practice more annoying, while the angle between normals is cheap to compute, the computational cost of parallel-transporting and finding an intersection point numerically is easily a million times higher.

Well, unfortunately if you're not quite in the same orbit but have different eccentricity, you get to enjoy this effect as well:

The longitude of the ascending node (and with it the orbital plane) drifts over time - and it drifts at a rate that depends on your orbital altitude. What does that mean for our notion of parallel transport?

It means that if you parallel-transport based on the current orbital plane, you can have a Rinc of zero, but when you actually fly there time passes and by the time you arrive Rinc is not zero any more.

So in fact you have to make a decision on whether you want to geometrically parallel-transport (basically using the deformed orbital planes, i.e. a 2-dim problem) or whether you want to fully-dynamical parallel-transport (solving the full 3-dim problem in which the solution depends on every orbital parameter - in particular the variation of orbital altitude) [2].

To summarize that - the cheap and intuitive definition of Rinc is not precise, any precise definition of Rinc is not intuitive and the situation that you specify some value of Rinc but the simulation will not give back to you what you might think at the crossing point is fairly normal.

Basically in order to use a precise definition of Rinc without bugging me endlessly with reports about odd observations, you would need to fully understand the problem, but if you full understand the problem you'd come to the conclusion that this is a bad parameter choice in the first place, so you would not use it [3].

[1] Incidentially, that's why the Shuttle rendezvous dialog refuses to give a value of Rinc (obtained with that definition) when it's getting smaller than the oscillation amplitude - it ceases to make any sense

[2] That may not be a big thing for any orbits the Shuttle can do - but LEO targeting can do way more than Shuttle orbits

[3] Pretty much the same is true for specifying 'standard orbital parameters' for a target - it's not clear what you mean when you specify e.g. inclination - at the equator? At highest longitude? Average value? At local position?