First, thanks for that tour de force. (My Thesis for my M.A. focused on the academic debate initiated by Rawls's book from '71 to the middle of the '80's)

That Rawls, Nozick, and Sandel are all firmly ensconced in the Liberal perspective is a testament to both its greatness and its fatal flaw. It is the only meta-ideology (Fascism and Marxism being the other two) that has as its primary concern discerning what justice (the just governance of society) must be, but the existence of such far-reaching interpretations of justice within it (which do go further than those three) render it 'unfit for purposes' (a phrase I hear a lot streaming BritBox). The fundamental problem is that it all comes down to matters of personal conviction: beliefs.

If I may, I thought anyone reading that outstanding article might find interesting an approach to justice that involves no beliefs: "Can't Get Any Simpler" (a "2 min read" here in Medium with links to more about it--with nothing I publish here behind the paywall). It calls for people to respect one another, specifically one another's capacity to choose. Since 'equality' calls for mutual respect and mutual respect for one another's capacity to choose in effecting all choices would generate the maximum liberty that co-existing people can share simultaneously, a society governed by 'real justice', as I have come to call it, would look very similar to a Liberal society. The only big change would be in the functioning of--the outcomes for society--but not the structure of the existing economic system. Intellectually, the whole matter of justice is infinitely more rigorous.