prh I don't think you are quite right in your analysis of the CofA verdict. The CofA said this:
"We also note that in his sentencing remarks the judge was satisfied that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent to sexual activity. That was simply his view; he would not know how the jury had reached its own decision, but we must respect his analysis."
So the trial judge himself thought that the victim was too drunk to consent.
The jury must either have agreed with him, or themselves concluded that the victim was not too drunk to consent, but in fact did not do so.
The victim gave no evidence to suggest that she did not consent, and none was given by anyone else. Logically, the only conclusion that the jury can have reached is that the victim was too drunk. We will never know, and juries do odd things, but that is the only logical conclusion.
The Court of Appeal was rebutting the argument put by RCE's barrister in making this statement, not disagreeing with the trial judge.
RCE has tried two different tacks no intoxication evidence - one at trial (that she lied about how drunk she was) and one on appeal (that she didn't and her memory loss was real, but that didn't preclude her having consented and forgotten). Neither "worked". I agree that is seems unlikely that new intoxication evidence will get him anywhere.
I do get slightly 
when people say that RCE was convicted by his own statement. It isn't true and it gives a slightly misleading impression. The victim's evidence was important in the conviction, although she didn't give evidence on consent. There was also lots of other evidence from the hotel staff, the taxi driver, the CCTV. It isn't quite as simple as RCE saying "I shagged her, so what" and being convicted on that basis.