You're making things harder than they have to be ...

You need switch half of only one receptacle to meet the 'lighting outlet' requirement. The dining room you mention is the only instance where the 'no other loads' issure might arise; in other instances, the lighting outlet can quite happily be on the same circuit as the rest of the receptacles.

As for extending the small appliance circuits into the dining room, well, that's another discussion. I don't want to go off on that tangent.

"Sharing" a duplex receptacle this way is also only an issue if you are trying to instal the absolute minimum number of receptacles. The issue goes away completely if you instal an additional receptacle. I daresay that these conundrums only arise if you're trying to use the NEC as a design manual ... see Article 90 for a caution against that!

Which, of course, again brings us up against 'professional judgement..' You're being paid to think - not just check off the boxes!

I think back to the home I grew up in, and I can't imagine any food serving equipment being set there. In that house, extending a kitchen circuit into the formal dining room made no sense at all.

Fast-forward to a "McMansion" I recently visited. This place had "Butlers' pantry," "breakfast nook," "bar," "island," and "craft" area adjacent to the kitchen, all in a manner that encouraged them to be used as part of food serving and preparation. Add to that a kitchen counter design that, despite the 14 ft. length, allowed only one receptacle. I'd defy anyone to confine the "kitchen" circuits to the kitchen proper!

Indeed, looking at home design trends, it almost seems that architects are deliberatley designing homes to confound code definitions. Again, that's a topic for another thread; let's just say that no rule book can be a substitute for good design.