You are correct that the well attested 8th century epikleses were slightly different, but I would say that reflected the fact male and female deacons did different things. When you draw the conclusion that, therefore, "deaconesses were not considered to be the female counterparts of deacons" you are joining those experts who focus on the role differences and then build to the conclusion that women were not "real deacons," did not receive major orders, did not receive the sacrament. There  are even honour lists that suggest female deacons were ranked between male deacons and sub-deacons.

But I think the triparte byzantine ritual evidence (epiklesis + laying on of hands + in front of altar behind iconostasis) and the use of the term cheirotonia definitively establishes that women did and were understood to receive the sacrament of orders.

And surely we can agree that that is the point in the current theological battle. If women did/can receive Holy Orders, than why not priests?