Current Eastern stance on John Beccus (John XI of Constantinople)

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Today, while casually browsing over Crusader Kings II (a game) timeline and trying to check if Council of Florence happened during that time (it did, yay) and therefore should be included in game, I came across very interesting historical figure- none other than Patriarch John XI of Constantinople, John Beccus.

I want to ask you guys (Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) what do you think about following points:

1. Fact he claimed Patriarch Photiuses critique of Latins actually came from Latins denying his position as rightful Patriarch because of deposition of his predecessor on grounds of Caesaropapism.
2. His views stemming from his studies of Nicephorus Blemmydes and Nicetas of Maroneia about Filioque being compatible with Patristic claims and therefore defending orthodoxy of the doctrine
3. His anathema- is it considered to be rightful or not?

Mostly speaking, I’d consider unionist position to be in harmony with Eastern Catholics (or Catholic, for that matter) one, while I’d consider anti-unionist position to be in harmony with Eastern Orthodox stance (at least officially, I know many Orthodox Brothers and Sisters are inclined towards unity of Churches).

Peace be with You all