I am going to repeat what I said, Lambda-CDM is successful in modeling many facets of the Universe in large brush strokes. Just a short list, it is successful in explaining the chemical abundance in the Universe, the Lyman-alpha forest, and the baryon acoustic oscillation.
Of course, there are higher order effects that it cannot explain, such as whether the expansion is time-dependent (which causes the Hubble tension that the link in your previous post refer to). No astrophysicist claims that Lambda-CDM is 100% correct. Is dark matter actually interacting? Is it actually matter or some sort of modification of gravity? These are all questions that can be asked as corrections to our current understanding of big-bang theories.
This is similar to many other things in astronomy, for example, the article that you linked,
the researchers discovered that its carbon and oxygen core was twice as big as the theory predicted
As you admit, this means that we got most of the theory correct! White dwarfs do have carbon and oxygen cores, just that we got the size of it wrong by a factor of two - an incredible feat for stellar physics standards, where quantitative predictions are often made within an “order of magnitude” (though this is quickly changing now).
Also, on your complain about redshifts in quasars: that quasar exhibit no time dilation is data coming from a study by one person that is never independently confirmed/repeated. Not one group, but one person! You mentioned above that you think that CMB lensing is a “statistical phantom”, despite their many detections, even one at 40 \sigma. I apologize, but I have to call you out on your double standard here: If there is ever a statistical phantom, don’t you think it is more likely to come from a study by a single person that is never independently repeated?