Like you, I’m genuinely surprised to see that Brady/Manning is still a thing worth debating. Even if you don’t think Brady’s success has clinched the debate, most Manning supporters stopped caring after he picked up a couple SBs.
Since the OP put in so much effort, it might as well be supplemented with some additional facts.
Brady actually has a higher passer rating both outdoors and in domes. Yes, even a sample that is primarily home games for Manning and entirely road games for Brady sees Brady come out ahead. So even ignoring the clear edge in weapons, the reason why Manning has edge in career stats is because he played so many more games in a dome. Even the feather in Manning’s cap isn’t as legitimate under closer inspection.
The “more with less” argument is indefensible hogwash. Brady may never have played behind a line as poor as Indy’s in 2010, but Manning never had to play with weapons comparable to Brady’s 2013 squad, let alone the 2006 disaster.
It is undeniable that Brady had better defenses early in their careers, but from 2005 on, Manning’s were comparable and often superior. That is no longer a relative black mark on Brady’s resume.
The OP also doesn’t seem to grasp that NE’s “system” is a multiple concept. Aside from anything requiring too much mobility, Brady has excelled at pretty much everything a QB could be asked to do. It is Manning who stayed in one lane and ensured the offense always had suitable personnel to run it.
NE has Scar, Manning had Mudd. I favor the former, but it’s not the sizable advantage the OP implies.
The only legitimate argument against Brady is that his teams have superior head coaching. While this is true, there is a corresponding increase to Brady’s post-season success. 11 AFCCG appearances vs. 5, 7 SB appearances vs. 4, 4 SB victories vs. 2. If that isn’t sufficiently profiting from the coaching advantage, how many of each should Brady have?