I mean, they may have considered her too drunk to consent BUT that CM had reasonable belief in her consent
Equally we don't know what the second jury has decided. They may think she was not too drunk to consent and did consent to what happened. They may equally think that she was too drunk to consent but Evans reasonably believed she consented.
Hardly massively compelling in a cumulative sense. Why was that enough to overturn a previous jury verdict
I doubt that anything will convince you. I think this is fundamentally about the presumption of innocence.
The Court of Appeal allowed this evidence with "a considerable degree of hesitation". They say that the evidence "is arguably sufficiently similar" to come within 41(3)(c)(i) and "may" also come within 41(3)(a) (i.e. reasonable belief, where there is no test of similarity). That falls well short of saying it is definitely within these provisions. This suggests to me that they allowed it as, even though he was convicted at the first trial, Evans is entitled to a presumption of innocence. He is also entitled to a fair trial, both under UK common law and under the ECHR Article 6. This means that, if there is doubt about the admissibility of evidence, the courts will tend to make the decision that favours the defence.
I suspect you think it is beyond doubt that this evidence should not have been allowed. The CCRC and the Court of Appeal clearly think there is an arguable case that it should be allowed. Since the Court of Appeal spent two days listening to the evidence and the arguments before arriving at its decision I am of the view that they are better placed than anyone here to arrive at the correct decision. This was the collective decision of 3 very experienced judges. They are, however, only human so it is always possible they have got it wrong.