If there is an ordering to the UL (universal law), H (humanity), and LO (law unto oneself) formulae, such that UL < H < LO, then wouldn't Kant have thought, in the Religion, that putting the formulae in the "wrong order" was the problem of wrongly orienting one's will? I ask because Kant adverts instead to just a dialectic of happiness-vs.-virtue, proclaiming both to be rational ends but such that one has priority over the other (in line with his "making oneself worthy of being happy" ideal in even the first Critique).
So:
Wood is mistaken; the formulae are not actually successive representations and it is not misguided to focus on any of them, though each is an aid to understanding the others?
Wood is not mistaken; there is a way to map a "wrong ordering of the formulae" onto the wrong prioritizing of happiness over virtue?