Sorry, i see no distinction between entity in a conventional sense and in a strict sense. This still doesn't answer the question of what is reborn, if the self is to be excluded. That also makes the concept of karma very problematic.
It does answer it. This post suggests to me that either you are not reading or perhaps not particularly paying attention to my earlier post(s) which addressed exactly these questions. (I don't doubt for a moment your intellectual capacity to understand them.)
Look, no offense and I don't mean this as an insult, but if you're really dead-set on believing that supernaturalism is a neccesary component of Buddhist philosophy and practice, and if you're willing to ignore contemporary scholarship on the subject to the contrary, then I see no way to productively proceed. The best I can do is suggest some reading by leading scholars that I have read. If you're not really interested in it, that's up to you:
What the Buddha Really Thought
Theravåda Buddhism: a social history from ancient Benares to modern Colombo.
How Buddhism began: the conditioned genesis of the early teachings.
Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism.
Early Buddhism: A New Approach: The I of the Beholder
(Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism)
And, of course, the Pali Canon, of which I have collected all except parts of the apocryphal Abhidhamma, which I find largely useless, and of which I have read about 80% to date.
Best of luck to you and I apologize for my shortcomings as a representative of what the above scholars have published.