Validity of a Syllogism

I am currently working through an obscure text on classical rhetoric, and I have just finished the first couple of chapters dealing with the syllogism and enthymeme. The text lists six criteria for checking the validity of a syllogism and has, as an exercise, twenty mostly invalid syllogisms for the student to check. I have finished the exercise with little trouble; however, one syllogism that I am confident is invalid does not fail to pass the six criteria as far as I can tell.

Although I took an intro to logic course years ago, I have never seen these criteria and find them, frankly, intriguing, so I'm interested to see where I went wrong. I'm hardly an expert, so I'm sure I am missing something obvious. I would greatly appreciate any help.

First the six criteria listed by the text:

1. There must be three terms and only three terms (major, minor and middle).
2. The middle term must be distributed at least once.
3. No term may be distributed in the conclusion if it was not distributed in the premise.
4. No conclusion may be drawn from two particular premises (as opposed to universal).
5. No conclusion may be drawn from two negative premises.
6. If one of the premises is negative, then the conclusion must be negative.

Before I give you the argument, I just want to reiterate that I am interested in validity, not truth. Many of the exercises are obviously untrue but structured validly.

The argument as it appears in the text is as follows: ""because most Americans are industrious and all of them love freedom, most industrious people love freedom."

I have rewritten the argument thus:
1. Most Americans are industrious (people).
2. All Americans (are people who) love freedom. (rewritten so as to have a copulative verb)
Therefore, most industrious people (are people who) love freedom.
(I know I have rewritten a lot of it, but I think the sense is the same.)

Here are my findings according to the criteria:

Major term: people who love freedom.
Minor term: industrious people.
Middle term: Americans.

1.There are only 3 terms in the argument.
2.The middle term is distributed in the second premise.
3. No term in the conclusion is distributed. ("Most" is particular, as are all predicates of affirmative statements.)
4. The second premise is universal since it applies to all Americans; thus, it is not the case that both premises are particular.
5. No premise is negative.
6. No premise is negative.

Although my analysis according to the criteria suggests the syllogism is valid, I can, just by eyeballing it, tell it is invalid. Just because "most Americans" are industrious, it does not follow that "most industrious people" are Americans. Just because "all Americans" love freedom, it does not follow that a majority of "industrious people" do too.