I am not equipped to answer the question in the O.P, if indeed there is a definitive answer, but I do know that some confusion has been brought about by the discoverers wishing to make their particular fossil "baby" more famous by putting it in a category all of its own.
Why should we expect to find a perfectly progressive line that actually links, which the photo would hint at , but not prove ?
We are lucky to have the fossil evidence we do have, incomplete though it is, and the science of the evolution of man does not depend upon having all the links in the "hand-holding" chain.
I think I would need a definition of "Truly" human before I put a marker in there anywhere, are the Neanderthals not human ? just because they were perhaps hairy ? is that not just a modern predjudicial view ?
They seem to have used grave goods and believed in an afterlife, and we seem to be conected to them by our DNA ,some inter-breeding went on,they are not totally seperate as we once thought, so why do we say they were not human ?