There also seems to be some disagreement on whether Lorisiformes are a subbranch of Lemuriformes, like Indrioidea and Lemuroidea.
There is no disagreement on the phylogeny; only an irrelevant debate on terminology. Either Lorisoidea is sister to Lemuroidea, or Lorisiformes are sister to Lemuriformes; which is a meaningless distinction. These debates are irritating, since they create needless confusion. Lemuroidea can mean a variety of different things depending on the author; even if they all agree on the phylogeny.
The internal phylogeny of lemurs is not settled, and the way you have it is probably wrong (or, at least, incomplete). You're missing
Daubentonia, aye-ayes, which are the sister group to all other lemurs.
The division of other lemurs into Lemuroidea and Indroidea is uncertain. I am assuming that in this classification Lemuroidea=Lemuridae, and Indroidea=all other lemurs. This is the topology you tend to get in studies of only living lemurs, but there are several extinct families of lemur from which we have DNA, since they only went extinct recently. Studies incorporating these (eg.
Herera et al., 2016 and
Orlando et. al 2008) tend to find indriids and lemurids to be sister groups among living lemurs; with cheirogaleids (dwarf and mouse lemurs) and lepilemurids (sportive lemurs) being successive sister groups to the lemurid-indriid clade.
Now, I'm happy to go on about the most controversial and contested parts of this phylogeny, but I'm not really sure if this is the point of the thread or not.