Honestly I think you're yet again sidestepping the core of my (and Kastrup's) argument and instead choose to meander around with explaining how physicalism works. I understand how it works and what conclusions it makes, I'm trying to point out other also valid conclusions within physicalism that should be raising an eyebrow and making you question if physicalism really makes that much sense.

Also Kastrup doesn't just assume a priori that consciousness cannot have evolved, the point of that article is to show that it almost certainly didn't by using just the physicalist framework. It's a conclusion, not an assumption. He maybe should have been a bit more specific and said "our particular experience of consciousness co-evolved with our bodies" rather than the mainstream line "our bodies evolved consciousness in of themselves", he himself doesn't at all believe that the exact consciousness as we experience it today was around forever like ghosts or souls or whatever.

Kastrup (and presumably by extension you) concludes that these are problems inherent in evolution, but they aren’t; they’re problems associated with assuming qualia aren’t subject to any physical restrictions, which isn’t something that any scientist that deals with the brain endorses, as far as I can tell.

I've explained multiple times that, while yes it is conceivable that under physicalism consciousness evolves exactly like it did in you or me it is extremely unlikely if you don't give the subjective qualities of consciousness in of themselves any causal efficacy (which physicalism doesn't, it considers them either equivalent to or a product of configurations of matter). You keep outright ignoring this quite specific argument and focus on more general philosophical points. You are yet to address that rather extreme unlikelihood other than handwaving it away as "it just is" which is IMO completely unscientific and is close to religious belief itself.

Kastrup also doesn't deny that the content of our qualia is heavily correlated with the material world, he's just claiming that it's not wholly caused by the material world on an ontological level.

My problem with Kastrup’s article, which I haven’t yet been able to get you to engage with directly, is that Kastrup doesn’t demonstrate an alternative method of inquiry.

I'm sorry he wasn't able to present to you an entire alternative scientific framework in a 15 minute article, I'll write him a stern email to do better next time. He's written multiple books, essays and did a bunch of lectures, here's a series of lectures about what exactly he's proposing and he goes way more in depth why he's proposing what he's proposing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDbCTxm6_Ps&list=PL64CzGA1kTzi085dogdD_BJkxeFaTZRoq

Also, quantum physics is definitely not my bag, but I don’t see how OOR departs from existing models of what we know about the universe and how it operates.

It does because it touches on the problem of what's the valid interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is definitely not a solved problem in mainstream science and can most definitely involve other ontologies other than physicalism depending on what interpretation you choose.