There is no contradiction.
It contradicts this earlier statement of yours:
Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.
Math of some imagination (as negative mass) in Hawking radiation is still imagination.
Hawking radiation is an aspect of quantum physics, which means this quote applies to it:
Math of real science as quantum is real.
So if the math of quantum mechanics is acceptable by itself as evidence, then Hawking radiation has to be acceptable too because Hawking radiation is an aspect of quantum mechanics.
If that process can work for the BBT, why it can't work for theory D?
First of all, I never said that it could. Second of all, the quantum vacuum doesn't behave the same way as matter in the early Universe in the Big Bang model does. There doesn't even appear to be consensus among physicists over whether virtual particles are real or not. Some physicists say that they are just a mathematical tool: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/05/07/ask-ethan-do-virtual-particles-really-exist/?sh=431df3201059
So, the space is full with electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.
If the virtual particle pair pops up exactly at some electromagnetic wave, it can split the pair due to their electric charge (based on Lorenz force)
Please explain how a photon (which is the quantum of an electromagnetic wave) is going to produce any kind of Lorentz force on a virtual particle pair. Has such a thing ever been observed?
Hence, if you take it to the infinite space and infinite time - You must get at least one Tinny BH.
That doesn't follow.
If you set nonsense (negative mass) in your real math you still get nonsense.
How do you know that negative mass is nonsense? It could just be that negative mass exists in some way that we haven't detected it (such as existing inside of black holes, which would make it completely unobservable).