Well I added the "buddies on their phones thing" basically to imply that they may not have been paying attention completely. At least not as much as this experienced dealer was or should have been.

I did add that for emphasis that the other players at the table were likely not paying as much attention as the dealer was.

The OP said this:
Clearly many mistakes made by this "experienced dealer."

The floor could also ask the players on OP's side of the table whether they heard the dealer tell OP that V had folded. And I disagree with the notion that it doesn't matter if the players were on their phone or not. The key is whether they were paying enough attention to take their word for it (which may and probably is biased) over the veteran dealer who is or should be impartial. I've never heard of the "3 player" thing anyway. Maybe that's a general way of doing things I suppose, but it's going to take a lot for me to not back up my veteran dealer in a situation like this one.

Only time I have not seen a floor back his dealer new or experienced is if a) there is clear, independent, incontrovertible evidence that the dealer made an error. Surveillance footage would qualify. But three guys at the table would not b) if three, four heck even two players say X happened, the dealer really acts like or says he is unsure and no one is actively challenging what the other players claim. Otherwise, what the dealers says happened is what happened.

A floor imo should be like an appeals court. He is an arbiter of what the law (rules) say but not a judge of the facts. That is for the trial judge or dealer in this case to handle.

I'm sure that works exactly as intended in your case. However with a discrepancy between hero-and-dealer versus villains-villians-neighbors-and-dealer, tossing the badges on the table gives them indication to speak up in that moment (before the pot was pushed) or speaking up too late.

It would have created a much easier justified management response in light of this question:
Verbal is fine, up until folks disagree what was said.

I am trying to think about this as if I was the villain in the hand.

My opponent makes a bet on the river in a loud casino. I verbalize call and table my hand. The other player asks the dealer a question (if the dealer and opponent never heard me say “call” are we so sure the villain heard the conversation between the opponent and dealer?) to which the dealer responds and then begins to muck the hand. The dealer then starts to push the pot to my opponent. I now object and say that I announced call and other players near me agree.

Floor comes over, a discussion is had, and I am awarded the pot based on the fact that I tabled my hand.

If the pot would have been pushed in the other direction we would be reading a different OP about how egregious of a mistake this casino made.

I do agree that the dealer mistakes are the issue and need to be addressed which I assume is happening behind closed doors. The casino has tried to extend an olive branch but was rebuked. Unfortunate situation for OP and hopefully the casino tightens up on orders of operations moving forward.

If you had thrown your cards onto the middle of the table without any chips accompanying them then yeah, we would be having a different conversation. We would be making sure you've learned not to do that again.

OP traded his cards for the pot based on the go-ahead of the dealer. The egregiousness in your hypothetical is not comparable. The lesson for OP is he got screwed.

I hope you object before your hand is irretrievable.

This seems like an awful ruling. I believe the floor could of made a decision that was in the best interest and fairness of the game. This I believe is in RROP. Villain in this hand had multiple opportunities to speak up and didn't. If he really said call, he would of said something when the dealer announced he folded. This seems like an angle to me. Maybe this room needs a rule where your hand is folded if exposed without putting money in the pot. $50 in comps is also no where near making this right. Given this is not a normal situation, OP should get the full buyin back. Makes no difference whether or not he would of actually made the money.