If Copernicus had such lousy critics, why assume Aristarchus had good critics who were aware of his arguments? Maybe they objected to heresy, like (maybe) Cleanthes.

You have not explained why Aristarchus would make his universe so large if the criticisms were as bogus as some of Copernicus's critics. Shits and giggles?

If (if!) he rejects the premise, that does not tell us why. Maybe because he rejects the conclusion. Or maybe he rejects the premise for completely different consequences, like wind. Or maybe he is not convinced by Aristarchus's main argument (whatever that was) and doesn't even bother to move on to the consequences.

If he rejects heliocentrism, as he clearly does, it does not matter for your original argument why exactly.

You still have not addressed the quotes from Sand Reckoner I gave which clearly show Archimedes rejects heliocentrism and describes it as a minority rejected position and he only draws on Aristarchus as a worst-case a fortiori argument. Far from being a weak argument from silence (weak because while we lack a lot of material, I don't think we lack so much material that they could have seriously maintained heliocentrism without us knowing; absence of evidence is evidence of absence), your chosen Sand Reckoner example shows the opposite.

If this is the best you can do, I see no reason to revise the usual historical scenario that heliocentrism was rejected because any version consistent with observations had absurd consequences.