I don’t hate this line, but I’d bet the flop. With weaker players you really need more of a hammer than a scalpel. They look for excuses not to fold, and although I don’t think your flop check has to be weak, it’s easy for them to choose to interpret it that way. I do actually think your hand has some good barreling potential, not against a K obviously but against the many pocket pairs in his cold call range. Your backdoor straight and flush draws are what I’m mostly talking about here.

As played, I like betting something like half pot to rep more thin value hands, though realistically I wouldn’t recommend betting AQ here. But your bluff targets are not ambitious ones. Your hand isn’t great for shoving to rep flushes, though, as you have no blockers.

I wouldn’t expect him to fold 98 to that bet anyway so if that’s what he called you with it doesn’t indicate any problem with the bluff (though not realizing there are straights and flushes gets to my point about the hammer vs scalpel). I guess hammer can apply to both the line and the size, but the point is mostly that you don’t want to rely on some sort of representational “this is how I would play X” sort of thinking and more just bet-bet-bet until you reach the threshold where you think he’ll fold your target hand.

If he never folds pre, then three-betting hands like this starts to blur the line between bluff and value, but that’s fine. I mean, you have 46% equity against a top 30% range, so even if the only thing the 3-bet accomplishes is preventing the BB from overcalling, it may be worthwhile. Though that’s less of a concern when the original raise is on the large side, which this would be if the game is 1/2?

A 25% range already seems pretty stationy to me. You realize V is SB, not BB, right? I’d try {TT-22, AQs-A2s, K8s+, Q8s+, J8s+, T7s+, 96s+, 85s+, 74s+, 63s+, 53s+, 43s, 32s, AQo-ATo, KTo+, QTo+, JTo}. I think the best of those hands should be 3-bets and the worst folds, but strikes me as a reasonable range for a loose passive.