> 1. Give the right answer in more than one special case. MOND may describe a few situations accurately, but it does not describe all situations where we have evidence for dark matter. Only some.
DM also fails numerous observations, like the one described in this article, external field effects, and more. It failed numerous previous observations as well until more parameters were added to DM theories to account for actual observations.
> 3. Make testable predictions beyond what it was tuned for.
This is backwards. DM has been tuned to match certain predictions, where MOND's predictions are free of parameters and yet fit observations. That's actually strong evidence in favour of MOND.
See my other comments here for a reference to a paper that reviews the evidence for/against both.
Take it up with the astrophysicists who gave this criteria, not me. Unless you are also an astrophysicist, I'll stick with trusting their judgement over yours. You can also watch the video I provided for a more nuanced explanation.
DM also fails numerous observations, like the one described in this article, external field effects, and more. It failed numerous previous observations as well until more parameters were added to DM theories to account for actual observations.
> 3. Make testable predictions beyond what it was tuned for.
This is backwards. DM has been tuned to match certain predictions, where MOND's predictions are free of parameters and yet fit observations. That's actually strong evidence in favour of MOND.
See my other comments here for a reference to a paper that reviews the evidence for/against both.