The consilience is not ‘supposed’, it is readily seen across multitudes of published analyses. Do you really want me to post a new valid analysis every day here? I could, you know, and I would never run out.
Cherry picking huh? Did you miss the bit where I explained that fitting the isochrones is done using standard statistical methods, and that there are standard statistical procedures applied to decide if data points actually fall on straight lines with statistical significance? That lines drawn with larger errors than that are not called ‘isochrones’ but ‘errorchrones’ and that they are not considered to be valid datings?
Of course there are instances where an analysis has failed. This can be for many different reasons. The fun bit is that at times the failures point to further research and insights in what might have happened in the past to cause the data distribution that we see. So even failed analyses can often be useful and add some value.
If there was no statistical significance in these methods, people would have stopped long ago spending money on them. Is anyone still paying alchemists for transforming lead into gold? Thought not.