In general terms a dictatorship is just a government that is headed by, and notionally run by, one person. So dictatorship is about government structure. Totalitarianism is about a government/party that essentially extends its influence into every aspect of life possible, be that as a form of control or because they have a worldview that makes them think their two cents about everything you do is worthwhile. So Totalitarianism is kind of structural (you need an apparatus to get to all those areas) but it is more so about what the state does. The standard scenario for totalitarianism assumes some form of autocracy (so a dictator, or perhaps an oligarchy etc.) but I don't think there is any 'rule' that says it has to be.

Now, the theory of dictatorship of the prolitariat, the practice and the general structure of dictatorship are not the same thing. As you've probably read, the dictatorship of the prolitariat wasn't supposed to be one person giving all the orders - it was supposed to be about a class, as represented by the government, running things. In practice this gets a bit messier - the state wasn't really representative of the prolitariat. But in contrast to the actual practice of a dictatorship, Lenin didn't entirely fit into that role. He was definately the man in charge but he didn't really have a formal position to indicate this. In practice a lot of decision making was delegated, and Lenin was willing to decide some matters within the machinery of the party/state (and other times not).

One quick thing - Lenin introduced that is missing from the three factors you've got listed above was Lenin's call for alliance between the workers and the peasantry.

Another issue - pinning down Lenin to a particular monolithic concept of government is kind of doomed. Lenin changed his positions often enough that the ideology he represented was not always clear cut if you look at his time as leader overall. There is also his tendency towards practicality - so if Lenin couldn't get what he seemingly wanted he would change the approach (see for example the slide from War Communism to NEP).

I think even the suggestion that totalitarianism was a Stalin-only thing is flawed. As in a lot of things, Lenin was a precursor to Stalin's own later rule - Stalin just did it better or bigger. So for example the cult of Lenin was greatly expanded by Stalin, but it wasn't like adulation for Lenin was non-existant prior to this.

A clearer ideological innovation of Stalin's was 'Socialism in One Country'. Again this in some ways reflected the practical realities of the later Leninist period (e.g. forget about internationalism, focus of fixing things up domestically), but with an economy closer to the War Communism end of the spectrum. But give a more concrete political position.

Does that make a bit more sense?