No. It doesn’t.
I have gone through every mention of the aggregates in the 4 principle nikayas and thier agama parallels here;
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/are-khandhas-early-or-late-ebt/
to save you the trouble of reading a long and complex thread, here is a qoute that gives a pretty good summary of exactly how common the aggregates are outside of SN/SA;
If we are seeking a standard by which to assert that there is good evidence that a doctrine is early even by the standard of EBT we might start with something Rhys Davids said, that the teachings most likely are those short passages, repeated verbatim, in all 4 of the principle Nikayas.
Now, since that time it has become apparent that there is another substantial canonical collection of sutras, the Agamas, preserved in Chinese. Sometimes a sutta in one of the NIkayas is preserved in a different Agama. When this occurs it is possible that the Therevada had it in the right collection and the Sarvastivada moved it to the wrong one, or vice versa.
So to fulfill our criteria that a passage occurs in all 4 collections we need to confine ourselves to those suttas/sutras that occur in the same collection in both the Pali and the Chinese. so DN with DA, MN with MA, SN with SA and AN with EA.
We may like to add another standard, that the teaching be given by the Buddha, not a disciple, on the grounds that a teaching made by a disciple but not made in the same collection by the Buddha may indicate that this is an innovation belonging to followers associated with that disciple.
If this standard is applied to the doctrinal category of the aggregates we get a picture like this:
DN14 parallel lacks the aggregates (as well as them being a very obvious insertion here anyway)
DN22 parallel not in DA
DN33 spoken by Sariputta
DN34 spoken by SariputtaSO by our criteria the aggregates are not taught by the Buddha in the shared long collection
MN9 Spoken by Sariputta
MN22 MA200 Probably originates in Bu Pc 68
MN23 Agama parallel not in MA
MN28 Spoken by Sariputta
MN35 Agama parallel not in MA
MN44 Spoken by Dhammadinna
MN62 Agama parallel not in MA
MN64 The Agama parallel omits the aggregates and has only vedana
MN72 Agama parallel not in MA
MN75 MA153 The Agama parallel omits at least some occurrences of the aggregates
MN102 No Agama parallel
MN109 Agama parallel not in MA
MN112 MA187
MN122 MA191 focuses on the late attainment suññataṃ
MN131 No Agama parallel
MN132 MA167 Original at MN134 does not contain the aggregates
MN138 Spoken by Mahākaccāna
MN141 Spoken by Sariputta
MN143 Spoken by Sariputta
MN147 Agama parallel not in MA
MN148 Agama parallel not in MA
MN149 Agama parallel not in MA
MN151 Agama parallel not in MABy our criteria the aggregates are taught once by the Buddha in the shared middle collection, at MN112
AN3.133 no parallel
AN3.62 Does not contain the aggregates
AN4.124 MA168 the parallel omits the aggregates (and includes the formless attainments)
AN4.126 no parallel
AN4.181 no parallel (replicates AN3.133)
AN4.196 no parallel
AN4.200 SA985
AN4.254 no parallel
AN4.41 no parallel
AN4.90 no parallel
AN5.30 SA1250
AN6.63 MA111 (the parallel has the “in brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering” pericope)
AN7.96 no parallel
AN8.2 no parallel
AN9.36 no parallel
AN9.66 no parallel
AN10.27 EA46.8 omits the parallel, SA486 SA487 SA488 SA489 (the SA passages give 復有五法，謂五受陰。)
AN10.60 no parallel
AN10.81 no parallel
AN10.92 Does not contain the aggregatesBy our criteria the aggregates are not taught by the Buddha in the shared numerical collection.
So I would contend that the aggregates are more or less absent from that part of the long collection that is shared by both the Nikaya and Agama traditions, except where it is taught by Sariputta, it is absent from that part of the middle length collection that is shared between the Nikaya and Agama traditions except MN112 MA187, MN22 MA200 , MN75 MA153, MN122 MA191 and MN132 MA167 and several of these suttas give us independant reasons to suspect they may be later compositions. And finally the aggregates are absent from that part of the numerical collection that is shared between the Nikaya and Agama traditions.
I would also note that a disproportionate number of both the MN and AN examples that do have Agama parallels but in different collections have those parallels in SA.
I would say that there is close to overwhelming evidence that as a doctrinal category the aggregates is associated with SA/SN, and that many of the appearances of it in the other books are later insertions, occurring in either Sarvastivada texts or Theravada ones but usually not both.
As for your other points I think that are simplistic and naive to the point of not being worth addressing so I wont bother.