That first paragraph of yours isn't sufficient for a science. I notice that you stopped short of the crucial result, which is that one of the models has to stick the landing. If I devise a thousand models to make sense of some phenomenon, and I check empirically whether any of them explains the natural patterns well, and none of them does because none can systemically predict how the patterns will behave, do I thereby have a science? No, I'll have tried to set up a science but I'll have failed because I'll have had nothing to show for my efforts, no accumulated knowledge of what I'm talking about with respect to the phenomenon at issue.

Which economic model/theory/framework, then, has stuck the landing, garnering support from most economists because it's been objectively, empirically established as a useful map of the essence of economies?

No, I'm afraid that's not an arbitrary question.