Something being consistent with a model is different than something being sufficient evidence on its own to support a model.
If the observed dark matter fractions of all known galaxies were 0% but the CMB was unchanged we wouldn’t assume dark matter exists. Thus your #2 is false. There’s infinite models consistent with any observation so finding something after a model was created for other reasons is useful as validation, but the chain of logic is still dependent on the prior observations not the model.
In a meaningfully different cosmos different observations would have happened and different models would exist. Trying to pick out specific experiments as sufficient on their own glosses over that particular limitation.
> If the observed dark matter fractions of all known galaxies were 0% but the CMB was unchanged we wouldn’t assume dark matter exists.
No, astrophysicists would eventually figure out something was up when they couldn't replicate the actual spectrum with dark-matter-free simulations. Why would you assume otherwise? Unless you want to dig into the assumptions of the scenario, in which case you're probably proposing a self-inconsistent universe so of course you can draw whatever conclusions you want from it.
> There’s infinite models consistent with any observation...
You can't actually believe this and still believe in science. If observations don't constrain models, then there is no point in observing. And in the long run, there's asymptotically no difference between "prior observations" and later observations. They're just observations that all go into the same model-constraining mill. Scientists are not fools, and are capable of realizing when an initial observation put them on a wrong trail.
You're still barely touching the real point. This all just sounds like rationalizations to avoid the fact that dark matter, for now at least, and for all that it genuinely sucks, is the Occam's razor explanation for the full suite of observations. Why is this so hard to accept?
