If you were not baptized Orthodox, ROCOR will rebaptize you. Whether they phrase that as rebaptism, corrective baptism, or just plain baptism depends upon the views of the individual bishop or priest.
In my experience, ROCOR seems to just want to call ROCOR baptism "baptism" in those cases, and to save that the original heterodox baptism didn't count, thus making ROCOR baptism not a rebaptism. St Basil however, in a case of a rebaptism that he supported, did use the term rebaptism, so it looks like it should be a fine term to me even from the ROCOR POV.
The OCA generally does not baptize converts from Catholicism, but with some liturgical Protestant groups like Anglicans and Lutherans I think it depends on the person. I've personally seen Anglicans and Lutherans received both by baptism in some cases and chrismation in others. I became Orthodox via chrismation with the OCA and it was explained to me that chrismation completes the Catholic baptism.
I read an MP (Russian language) article from years ago explaining that there are three theories on how chrismating instead of rebaptising heterodox converts functions, one of which is "completion" (what you mentioned)
Keep in mind that in the Catholic church you're baptized as an infant, but confirmed (chrismated) in your high school years. Part of the rational goes back to the canon you mentioned and that the Nicene Creed mentions "I believe in ONE baptism..." - emphasis mine.
Did the 17th century Synod of Jerusalem lay out reception of Catholic and Protestant converts, or am I mistaken?
If the 17th century Synod of Jerusalem (held by the JP himself) imposed reception of those heterodox, then it would, strictly speaking, only be authority directly over Jerusalem's Patriarchate, as well as any EO Churches that affirm that Synod.
The Russian Church does not take an official position on this Synod and in one case (Deuterocanon's status) has a different position. The JP Synod that you mentioned affirmed some of the OT Deuterocanon as canon, whereas the ROC still typically refers to the OT Deuterocanon as "noncanonical" in Church parlance (even though the ROC uses some Deuterocanon in its official readings).
The JP Synod was practically a Counterreformation Synod, reacting against the possible Calvinism of Pt. Lucaris. This is important background to understanding that Synod.
Often the ROC actually contains views and practices that are more "traditional" and older than their contemporary Greek practices. The Old Believer schism is the most famous of this phenomenon (the ROC holding older practices than the Greeks was one cause of the conflict), but there are plenty of others, eg. organs in Greek Churches. Synod of Dositheus is one example. Eastern Fathers only accepted the Deuterocanon in some piecemeal limited idiosyncratic fashion, and the ROC's typical theology on that topic more closely resembles the older, pre-Reformation position held in the East. The Council of Dositheus, on the other hand, more closely resembles the Catholic West's position. The Council of Trullo Canon 2 seems most authoritative on the topic, and it's ambiguous, although I lean to taking it to support the OT Deuterocanon's canonicity.
