John Tan wrote for someone on AtR group:

"Conditions" means those factors in the 12-links.  

"DO" (Soh: Dependent Origination) does not arise out of ignorance, "things" arise out of ignorance and are therefore non-arisen -- dependent origination is non-origination.

Therefore DO is an enlightened view, sentient beings do not see DO, they see truly existent things being produced and destroyed (essential causality). So DO is taught because sentient beings in confusion (ignorance) mistake reified conventions as "things" being produced and destroyed.  

Both prasangika and svatantrika do not deny conventionalities, because denial implies rejecting the functional validities of these conventionalities.  Like how "money" is created out of paper, failing to see the validities of the functional aspects of "money" is nihilistic.

Prasangika and svatantrika differ only in terms of the philosophical approaches in debates with opponents holding varying degrees of inherent views, not in terms of ultimate realizations.  According to both Mipham and Gorampa, the result of ultimate realization for both prasangika and svatantrika are the same and to Gorampa,  prasangika is not a higher view than the svatantrika.