Yet you have no explanation for observed errors nor even what percent of these perceived errors are discarded.
Worst of all for critical thinking and the scientific method ~ zero explanation for the far easier to observe natural clocks that I’ve been pointing out throughout this thread.
Another couple of assumptions for radioisotope dating:
Initial ratio of father and daughter elements, and
Volcanic heat resets these radioisotope clocks.
And you have yet to provide any information on what percentage of the total measurements your observed errors are. One, or even a hundred bad levels do not constitute proof that levels don't work.
You submit that the existence of observed errors makes the entire methodology flawed. By that premise the existence of an unreliable level would dictate that none of them can be trusted and people should stop using them, regardless of how many times the were used without any observed error.