It's a fine enough projection, but like any projection it doesn't necessarily match reality.

In what way? Seems to work OK with eg. GPNSS everywhere.

It may provide a mathematically accurate way to predict certain phenomena, but that does not mean it is an accurate model of the earth. One can construct infinitely many as accurate projections and models that have equal predictive and historical confirmation powers, which leads any reasonable person to come to the conclusion that it is not necessarily a correct way to look at reality simply because it holds these traits. It must be shown that these infinitely many other views are incorrect to take it on face value that it is the correct representation.

This proves difficult.

It does not 'predict' certain 'phenomena'. It is an accurate model of the earth, agreed and used internationally.

What does 'have equal predictive and historical confirmation powers' mean, why do you write in this way, it does not make what you say any more correct.

Can you please provide details of an accurate alternative that has the correct distances, maybe even a map of a flat earth.

That's not now things work, we do not prove everything we might come up with is wrong before we know what is correct. However, nice try to confuse the discussion, millions base their navigation etc. on the WGS84 model and it works. As requested, where are the errors in it?