I don't think he can get the "between 2 and 3 years with 86 days in the previous year" this year unless he's called up after July actually, based on MLBTR's list. By the time he's accrued 2 years (rest of 2012 + 2013 and some of 2014) I think that takes him out of the running for Super Two. This takes into account his previous time with the Padres at MLB level but I think you figured that in already.
Okay there are multiple points here, but I think the biggest thing is what year does the phrase immediately preceding season refers in the 86 days clause. I think it applies in Rizzo's case to the 2014 season which he would presumably be playing the whole season and therefore wouldn't apply.
All right lets get down to the nitty gritty of the Rizzo case:
2011-68 days
2012-? but we can assume that the number will be less than 104 so that he has less than 172
2013-1 year + what ever between 2011-2012 (assuming of course less than 1 year)
2014-2 year + what ever between 2011-2012 (this would be the season that the 86 day clause would apply and therefore probably a non-issue with Rizzo)
2015-First year of arbitration if Super 2
2016-Seond year of arbitration
2017-Third year of arby
2018-Fourth year of arby
Is that clearer and or look right?