Why in-the-world did Muslims choose the Hafs Qur'an?

Notice: I apologize for the sound in this video, as it does come across as distorted. This video was recorded over a week ago, when I was using my Samsung phone, which unfortunately does distort the sound. Since then I have moved back to my older Apple phone, whose audio is more realistic and clearer. The last two videos were recorded on the Apple. This video, and the following video were recorded using my Samsung, so please bear with me. And thanks to those who have helped me try to solve the problem with my audio. One of our viewers, Abdiquadri (not to be confused with Dr Yasir Qadhi) tries to respond to another question concerning why Hafs was chosen. He says, "Hafs, from Kuffah. So what? The pre-uthmanic manuscripts of Kufans were burned. How does that affect the post-uthmanic renditions. Also, conflating (combining) the Oral Tradition and the textual tradition is rather disingenuous". FoxHound gives a good reply when he says, "Why was Uthman burning Qurans if it's just the Rasm consonantal text (because there were no dots and vowels in his time)". "Muslims intentionally downplay the variants that led to Uthmans recension. Early Muslims state over and over again that the differences in the early Quran were severe (i.e Bukhari vol 6 Hadith 510 book 61)". "The differences we are talking about are nothing to do with the rasm. It's the dots and vowels which are in evidence between the chosen 30, none of which were compared to any initial Rasm, because we don't even know if their Rasm matches Uthmans, since no manuscript with a Rasm exists that early. The Qira'ats were chosen because they were popular; so, nothing to do with the text". "Hafs was chosen the same way, and is not one of the 7 chosen by Ibn Mujahid and others for reasons as stated in the traditions (he was a liar etc)".  "He was also chosen because he had additional symbols and modified vowels, and his text is he therefore different from Aasim, his teacher. So, why would anyone trust the Quran from him?" "How do we know if his 'ahruf' is that of the Qurashi? Again, we don't, since Hafs was merely chosen because the variants of the other 29 were causing problems with different students giving different answers to test questions in Egypt. There is no evidence that the Hafs which was chosen is any better than any of the 29+ versions rejected, or even other Hafs versions that were discarded (because it was revised in 1936), or that it actually goes back to Hafs (let alone to Muhammad) in any way. There is no documentation on how it was chosen, as it was done by a secret committee, led by one man, much like Uthman's alleged version". This is an excellent overview of the problems with Hafs. The only thing I would add is that I'm 'killing 2 birds with 1 stone' in this video. It seems obvious that Uthman's desire to create a Quraishi dialect is nothing more than fiction, because there could not have been such a dialect in a written text that early, due to the need for i'jams (dots) and Harakats (vowels) to delineate such dialects, and they were only created afterwards, in the 8th century. The fact that we even know about this event from Bukhari, in the late 9th century, suggests it was what those in the 9th century thought happened, because in those days dialectical (i'jam) and vowel (harakat) differences in a written form were commonplace. I'm simultaneously poking fun at the Saudi Arabians in 1985 for choosing a final canonical Qira'at which wasn't derived from their own location (i.e. the Arabian peninsula, or the Hejaz), and instead came chose a Qur'an which was created within an Iraqi environment, which I'm assuming is due to its popularity, a fact we can credit the Turkish Ottomans with initially (between 1299 - 1924 AD), and then the Egyptians later on (post 1924). © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2020 (44,420) “inspiring”, by Rafael Krux (from-filmmusic-io - License CC BY)