Cinephilia does not have a place in Burnett's argument as it currently stands. Though his presentation was impressive, and the breadth of his research and conceptually complex analysis is most admirable, the question of excess, a major characteristic of much cinephilia scholarship, is not present.
Burnett and the case of the missing cinephilia
Contemporary theorists of cinephilia Christian Keathley and Paul Willemen discuss excess as an essential characteristic of the phenomenon. In Burnett's defense, he begins with a concept of cinephilia derived from de Baecque, and I cannot say with certainty that de Baecque believed excess a characteristic of cinephilia. However, Keathley and Willemen's work has definitively established the characteristic as a part of cinephilia, even though Willemen is hesitant to make any definitive statements as such. In fact, excess is one of only two characteristics that Willemen is comfortable identifying.
Perhaps de Baecque innovated a tentative conception of cinephilia, but it is indeed just that: tentative. In retrospect, it took many decades of writing on cinephilia to identify excess as a necessary characteristic to this way of watching.
However, I'm not sure that cinephilia would not work for Burnett's argument overall. As his work was unfolding, I guessed at a potential claim he would make: Bresson was developing his own method of implementing moments of excess within his films by establishing a rhythm that he could then breach. At first I was hesitant to accept this, but I was willing to listen to the argument because it seemed very intriguing. However, this was not in fact the case, and Burnett never really questioned de Baecque's definition.
I would suggest one of two things: either work this above proposition into the study and try to justify it, or drop cinephilia altogether.
Regardless, I should say that Burnett's was one of the most engaging presentations of the conference and I very much so look forward to reading his work in the future.