LCDM existed before the Planck (or WMAP) data became available. As did MOND (including TeVeS). There is no argument here regarding "a posteriori" either way. The only relevant fact is that pure LCDM can explain the curve, while pure MOND can't.

>DM is necessary because if you used any explanation other than DM it must be wrong

You completely missed the point. Although at this point I fathom it must be intentional. DM is necessary. End of story. You even said it yourself. By your own statement, any explanation (such as the one linked by OP) that uses no DM at all must be wrong, yes.

Of course it is much more complicated to come up with a sound theory of both, especially if you also want to retain some predictability. That's why we regularly see lone researches publish stuff like this. But it is neither the consensus nor really relevant to the field as a whole.

> There is no argument here regarding "a posteriori" either way. The only relevant fact is that pure LCDM can explain the curve, while pure MOND can't.

So you're not going to read the evidence I presented, got it.

> Although at this point I fathom it must be intentional. DM is necessary. End of story. You even said it yourself.

DM is necessary under the assumptions of LCDM and MOND. That is not the same thing as saying DM is necessary without qualification.