I have an issue with the breakdown you use between hard and soft first. I've always seen it argued that the difference between hard and soft was purely how sciency it was... all good fiction, and especially all good Sci-Fi focuses on 'human issues', or social interaction or what have you by default, so its all about the qualities of teh setting.
Beyond that the breakdown is also a bit weird, because while Star Wars, for example, is clearly labled as Sci-Fi by most people, it's so soft that fans (who make these sorts of distinction and will often fight to the knife over them) generally classify it as "Space Opera", mostly because space wizards with magic swords make a mockery of 'science' on the face of it.
Beyond that, I also must take umberage at the Mushroom classification. Perhaps I'm being contrarian, but for example Philip K. Dick was tripping balls most of his damn life, but his science fiction could be quite grounded for all that, generally making an exception for his naming conventions (Bladerunner, or Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, is a prime example of why Dick should have let his editors name his books...). The science we see in Bladerunner (or 'DADES?' which is unweildy as fuck) is generally quite plausibe (I've read the book so I'm trying (probably failing) to stick to that...), and the story is coherent and focused deeply on the human/social implications of the setting.
So should it be Mushroom, as Dick was perma-baked from psychadelics for most of his life? Should it be 'hard' because the science was/is plausible? Should it be 'Soft' because the emphasis is on how the setting shapes and reveals the human characteristics of its characters? Because it asks hard questions about the human condition through the medium of speculative fiction?
Genre is, or rather should be, at best a post-hoc thing, and you, my fine chapeau'd friend, are wading into a morass, I fear.