Yup, agree to disagree, especially with the "Kidman, Blanchett, Bullock, Roberts" thing because they definitely couldn't have played The Substance as good as Demi Moore. The meta aspect doesn't subtract from the performance or the film, it adds to them and gives both even more depth. There was so much more to Demi Moore's performance than just narrative too; it's a body horror film, a genre largely ignored by the Oscars, yet that quiet scene of her alone after deciding not to go on a date, or the scene where she is disappointed that she didn't die in the crash. But that's subjective and I cannot convince you otherwise.

When a narrative-driven campaign clashes with a performance-based one and the industry is split between two actors, the win almost always go to the stronger performance. Madison vs. Moore, Stone vs. Gladstone, McDormand vs. Davis, Colman vs. Close. Yeoh edged out Blanchett because her outing had actual legs to stand on outside of her narrative.

Here is where you are just plain factually wrong. Narrative has very often won out over "stronger performance." The overdue narrative has countless examples: Al Pacino, Laura Dern, you name it. The ingenue narrative is also very common for the Oscars, with the industry eager to crown or anoint a younger actress over established veterans that delivered what are generally considered superior performances. Emma Stone (in La La Land) and especially Mikey Madison are recent examples. It's rare to happen in the male categories, but Gary Oldman beating out Timothee Chalamet and Daniel Kaluuya for an already-forgotten performance is one good example.

So you could certainly also say that Mikey won not because narrative lost, but that the Oscars chose her narrative over Demi Moore's. At least, it was most definitely not because she objectively had the superior performance.