Inequitable conduct in simple language implies the patent would not have been possible but for the conduct.
No, it does not.
IC means that the applicant was not playing fair with the PTO. It does not require that the patent would not have been granted anyway.
The concept is that the PTO is not being adversarial in the process, so when the applicant is not being straight up, that is inequitable (in the sense that the PTO is being fair and balanced, while the applicant is not).
The recent ruling that changed the standard some means that the IC has to be more significant wrt the patent being granted, but not that it was necessary.
BTW, IC does not invalidate the patent, it makes it unenforceable. I have no idea if this makes any real world difference.
As to your reply to North's #2, the reason for that being a possibility is exactly what happened in the example case he gave in #1, namely that 2 separate appeals were needed. I am with you that this is "wrong" (costing the parties time to possibly save some bench costs), but I would certainly see why it is possible.
And certainly believe North on the issue.
Regardless, I like the early action on this. I do not see why the change in the court logic really hits this very hard, clearly the issues seams to play into the PTO decision.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
