It's not clear at all. There's lengthy scholarship on this issue, dating back close to 200 years.
My position, as I've argued repeatedly on this forum, is that Congress cannot pass a law that is immune from Article III review. The reason why your argument fails is because you're reading that section of Art. III in isolation.
The first sentence of Art. III is mandatory. "The judicial power shall be vested...." The first sentence of section 2 is also mandatory: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases . . . arising under this Constitution . . . ."
Thus, reading Article III together, as we must, it's clear that Congress can limit the Supreme Court's appellate review. It's also clear that Congress can abolish lower federal courts, so some people have argued that Congress can create an "unreviewable" law, but this ignores the mandatory commands of Article III which clearly state that the judicial power must be vested in at least one Article III court, the judges of which must have lifetime tenure and salary protection, per section 1.
It’s a pretty powerful argument to say that John Roberts disagrees with you.
I also think the text itself disagrees with you. It says “All cases...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”