I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, or even why. I'll guess that you're interested in physical cosmology and would like a set of brief and not-too-technical reactions to your ideas (which I take to be implied questions) from someone who knows the \Lambda-CDM cosmology reasonably well.

Dark energy it is a property of empty space that does not dilute away as more space appears in an expanding universe. The only way to abolish dark energy is to eliminate the expansion of the universe. It only has a "fundamental field strength" in particular chosen frames of reference in which one can represent it as a field with a constant energy-density. The comoving frame of the standard cosmology is one such frame of reference. However, in most other frames this energy density vanishes, and when that happens a general relativist will decide that the energy density was an artifact of the choice of frame of reference or system of coordinates and ditch the word "fundamental".

Now, there are lots of ways we can complicate the action S_{\Lambda-CDM} in a Lagrangian formulation of the standard cosmology by introducing further repulsive terms into it beyond constant * \Lambda (as in the Einstein-Hilbert action or an expansion of it) or L_{repulsivematter} in a parameterization, and indeed there have been numerous attempts to do so. However, short of eliminating the expansion of space at all times and in all reference frames there is no way to get rid of a repulsive, non-diluting, non-concentrating (when time-reversed or if the critical density of the universe turns out to lead to a contraction of space in the future) term.

But in the standard cosmology, we have \Lambda, which is just the cosmological constant, i.e., dark energy is a property of the ground state, which is the vacuum. When there's more vacuum, there's more dark energy. Mathematically, we start with an action that leads to the standard write-down of the EFEs. Physically, this matches observational tests at large scales, which is convenient because the standard write-down of the EFEs is almost the only way to match observational tests within our solar system (c.f. the parameterized post-Newtonian formalism).

> gravity or light speed are not universally constant

What exactly do you mean by "gravity ... not universally constant"? In particular, what do you mean by gravity?

In General Relativity speeds are something that are extremely hard to talk about except in the local neighbourhood around a single point. In fact, many general relativists would argue that talking about "universal" speeds violates the spirit of general relativity. However, if our universe continues to be modellable as a smooth manifold with a Lorentz metric, we get a sort of quasi-universality of "c" in that at every point one can construct an infinitesimal region of spacetime in which "c" is a parameter in the action of matter and takes on the same _locally measured_ value in each such region for an observer in that region. There is ample evidence that favours this up to energy scales accessible to us on Earth and visible with observational platforms on and near our planet.

There are certainly metric theories other than GR that allow for different sources to couple to different metrics, but most of these have to undergo a phase change to an effective single metric with universal coupling in the early universe or we would see clear evidence for them (in particular, the distribution of heat in the early dense phase of the universe still has to produce the Standard Model at lab energies and also stars and galaxies and labs). Some productive and well-regarded physical cosmologists have proposed these types of theories, even recently (e.g. Afshordi & Magueijo), and they explictly reject a universal value of "c" (in particular c approaches infinity in their model's extremely early universe).

But in the standard cosmology we have General Relativity, and we don't vary the value of G or of c when grinding through the Einstein Field Equation; we take those values as given to us by nature, and have no evidence for them varying in the observable universe (and a pretty substantial amount of evidence against such variations, in particular including petabytes of spectroscopic data from objects in the sky).

> "There should be some wave-function (possibly resulting from what we call a big bang), in terms of G and C, that once integrated out...

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Could you explain further?

> To me it seems far less likely that there's an entirely new set of particles we cannot see, despite the Standard Model of particles being proven correct out to 40 decimal places.

Dark energy is not particles. As I said above, it's a feature of the vacuum, and the most fundamental feature of the vacuum is that it is empty of particles. A tl;dr here is that we don't know what creates more space rather than less space, but we know that when more space is created there's more dark energy in the comoving frame but not more particles.

Are you thinking of dark matter here, rather than dark energy? If so, we already have hot dark matter in the form of neutrinos. Neutrinos are "hot" because they move relativistically, and thus are prone to carry momentum far away from galaxies very quickly. Cold dark matter is "cold" because it moves non-relativistically and so the momentum CDM carries lingers in place in and around galaxy clusters. While it would be convenient if CDM were like heavy neutrinos, there is no reason in the standard cosmology that CDM has to be particles at all, or even just one species; the only requirement is that it be almost entirely collisionless and non-radiative so that we don't see it and so that it doesn't release its trapped momentum (e.g. by converting some of it into hot dark matter or light or standard model particles).

Finally, the Standard Model is mute on gravity, and yet you -- made up of Standard Model particles -- are feeling it right now. So I'm not sure how your argument about the correctness of the Standard Model fits with your argument.