Your understanding seems to me correct on both counts. I've checked the DPD for cases when a direct object may or must be preceded by the preposition a, and this is not one of them. ("Personal a" is not the only case, but anyway it seems absurd to personalize a procedure.)
It could be a case that is not covered by the DPD, probably having to do with resolving a possible ambiguity or to avoid a faulty parsing of the sentence. This is paragraphy 1.1.k of the DPD article linked above, which says that one must add a to the direct object if both the subject and the object are placed after the verb. This is the opposite: the direct object has been moved to a marked position before the verb, and if left there without the preposition a, the hearer/reader might be tempted to start parsing the sentence with este procedimiento as the subject, only to find this reading wrong after a few more words.
This also looks a lot like the compulsory redundant indirect object pronoun that one finds in propositions like A tu madre no le grites (where a tu madre and le both refer to the same indirect object). The redundant direct object pronoun lo is fine here; the the DPD mentions this case (5.2). What's strange is the preposition a. The thing is that, even though the structure of the sentence is not covered by the grammar, it reads completely fine to me.
This may have something to do with the unusual grammar of considerar, which, like creer, takes two arguments in a somewhat confusing arrangement that invites disambiguation. These all mean the same:
- Considero esta idea disparatada.
- Considero disparatada esta idea.
- Considero esta idea un disparate.
- Considero un disparate esta idea.
If you asked me to emphasize the object, esta idea, I would naturally say:
- A esta idea la considero disparatada.
- A esta idea la considero un disparate.
So there's definitely some unstated rule regarding a + direct object there.
The whole thing could be rephrased as a pasiva refleja like you said. There would be no difference in meaning.