The only data point that matters is the one where you got hired and started receiving paychecks, all others are not factors at all.
I don't understand that. If an employer offers $X, I'd say that means the applicant was worth at least that much to the employer, assuming the job offer was legitimate. I suspect it's fairly rare to get an offer for $X, only to find out that the employer was lying and won't actually pay that much.
The $Y amount may be higher than $X because you are actually worth $Z to a median company, and $Y > $Z because that particular company is in the 90th percentile at turning developer work into revenues, and $Z > $X because that company is in the 20th percentile.
So, generalizing, the company that is capable of offering the most to you is going to be better at managing development teams, which is usually a symptom of being a better employer overall.
Not necessarily. The first employer says I'm worth $X to them. The fact that I may be worth more than $X to another employer is not a contradiction.
In general, there is nothing "wrong" with a particular employer and applicant being unable to agree on a mutually satisfying salary. It doesn't necessarily mean either party made a mistake in the salary negotiation.