The ceph (trace you did, ceph trace FH to N perp) has the ceph stat is in there to see the vertical. Now, if you passed another vertical that went right through the base of the nose where the upper lip meets it and also through the nose bone (does not have to be a specfic point on the nose bone as long as it is a vertical line parallel to the ceph stat that passes through where the base of nose and upper lip meet), that would be pretty similar to what some surgeons use in reference to where the soft tissue should be relative to that line. In the case of the ceph tracing, the lips should just about 'kiss' (a tad ahead of) that line and for them to do so, the upper jaw would come a little bit forward and lower jaw more forward than upper.
In your case, a vertical in the direction to the line of gravity (which the ceph stat shows) reveals that a perpendicular to it passes through the porion point and the point found on the lower orbit (Frankfort horizont). So, if a surgeon told you he wanted to advance your upper jaw a little and your lower jaw somewhat more, that would be the salient info relative to the vertical I referred to drawing into your ceph.
As to the hard to find Porion (po) point, an artifical intelligence program can find it. It's somewhat above the where you see the ear piece of the ceph (circled area with dot). So, a horizontal (perpendicular to gravity vertical) that passes the orbital point could be drawn to represent the Frankfort horizont.
In other cases, they might elect to rotate the ceph clockwise a number of degrees to vertical of the ceph stat and posit what they might call a 'true' vertical (even though how they call a 'true' one is not actually parallel to the true line of gravity which the ceph stat shows). In that case, a ceph rotated a number of degrees clockwise will have it that the maxilla/mandible complex relative to the new 'true vertical' they draw (to pass through the point where the base of nose meets upper lip area) will be more posterior to their proposed 'true vertical than those areas would be if they didn't rotate the ceph. In some cases, they remove the ceph stat from the ceph tracing they make from the ceph so you don't see they rotated it. For example, not all people hold their head such that the line drawn from porion point to sub orbital point is parallel to the floor horizont and who knows (well I don't) if every person has a Frankfort horizont that is parallel to the floor and perpendicular to the line of gravity. So, sometimes they will rotate the ceph as to propose a vertical where the person's soft tissue profile would look visually better in their eyes and also to onlookers
In your case the vertical line you drew that passes through the root of the nose and the ANS point is parallel to the line of gravity and also parallel to plane of the diagram and your Frankfort line (po to orbital) is perpendicular to that. So what to do next would be to draw a parallel line to your green vertical so it passes to where the base of nose meets the upper lip and that would show you the vertical that a lot of the aesthetically minded surgeons use to evaluate displacement of the soft tissue profile. The pog point of chin would be a little posterior to that line. So relative to the other vertical I referred to (Arnett vertical), in that regard your pog point (on the chin) is more posterior than that and your lips don't 'kiss' (a tad beyond) that line. So, less upper jaw advancement than lower jaw.
There are many different ways in which a ceph analysis is done but the landmarks (points) will be the same. Also, there are 'norms' as to the angular relationships drawn through the points found in the skull/face. But sometimes going beyond the norms of the angular relationships can kick up a more aesthetically pleasing profile to the soft tissue profile. For example, SNA and SNB angle can be within the norm. But increasing those angles above the norm might kick up a more aesthetically pleasing soft tissue profile. Although those are important angle relationships to look at as to relationship the upper and lower jaw have to each other and how those angles deviate from the norm, they are not always the be-it and end-all to a more 'ideal' soft tissue profile. So, there are some surgeons who will POSIT a soft tissue vertical that could look better on some people's face whether or not the SNA/SNB angles changes deviate from the norm.
Personally, I think the more straight forward method of analysis that incorporates a lot of relationships found in many types of ceph analysis is the one in the following link.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2395921516300575In figure A of the link, it uses the Arnett soft tissue vertical for the soft tissue profile (which is the one I often refer to). Also, it demonstrates the salient points and their relation to each other as to make things 'geometrically intuitive' (relative to aesthetics). In that way, you don't have to fret about finding all the points found on a ceph. Ideally, a ceph tracing done professionally (where you are not the one finding all the points) can be used. But not every point in there is needed to do a straight forward evaluation.
So, if you like studying ceph analysis but might not want to be bogged down by the many many different methods of doing it, check out that link. It's an easier way to think about it than what you are struggling with.
