score:1
First, not that I know of.
Second, the third type of dependent-arising is a unique tenet of the Middle-Way Consequence School (Madhyamika Prasangika). Other schools posit that phenomena exist by way of their own characteristics/from their own side/inherently. For instance, Madhyamika-Svatantrika posit that an existent is empty of true existence (because it appears to exist from its own side without being imputed by mind) but exists inherently (for it exists from its own side indeed, although it is also imputed by mind). So, as they posit inherent existence, they do not posit the third type of dependent arising, dependence on name.
Moreover, although permanent phenomena are dependent-arisings, I would say that 'they exist in dependence on parts, and so forth' rather than 'they arise in dependence'. Although Yogacara and Madhyamika are Mahayana tenets, there are four possibilities between 'being a proponent of Mahayana tenets' and 'being Mahayana by practice'. A practitioner could be Mahayana by practice and Hinayana by tenets, such as Hinayana foe destroyers according to Khedrup Je, and vice versa.
Daniel Cozort's Unique Tenets Of The Middle Way Consequence School elaborates on the topic (and what distingues Prasangika from other schools). It is valuable but few of his assertions do not accord with the intent of the Geluk tradition. Generally, you will find distinctions between all schools of thoughts in Tenets.