Okay, very good! Now we can get to work.

When we look at the "black eye", it is apparent that something striking is happening on the scale of the eye itself (after all, the eye is dark). Furthermore, it looks like the dark part is different somehow ("stronger gravity", "deeper gravity", something) than the surrounds--it stands out, much like the Burj Khalifa in the flat plains of Dubai. In the language of calculus, it looks like "an extremum" (maximum or minimum of something).

Normally I'd just drop Laplace's equation here, which any remotely competent astrophysicist knows backwards and forward, and proves that in a sum of 1/r potentials, the only local extrema are the points where r = 0. No serious physicists would entertain your idea for a second because the math doesn't work out at all. You had a structural idea that wasn't just wrong because of carefully collected evidence but is actually mathematically impossible because you didn't bother learning the requisite math. Oops.

But it can be informative to understand quantitatively just how wrong Model B is, so I won't do it that way.

Since the whole thing--accretion disk (presumably--bright part) and eye/hole (dark part) fits within the orbit of Mercury around the sun (see for instance https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-05-12/black-hole-sagittariusa-milky-way-image-event-horizon-telescope/101041816), and Model B still postulates that this is a gravitational effect, we can infer that there are large changes in gravitational potential energy on scales smaller than the orbit of Mercury (let's say 50 million kilometers to make our calculations easy). Let's call this distance over which there are big changes d.

This means we could think about dropping a test mass into that area--let's say it weighs 1 kg to make the math easy--and we could measure the force on it, maybe by observing its acceleration, or maybe some other way.

We can write down what the force is due to the rest of the galaxy. Let's consider the rest of the galaxy as N points of mass m_1, m_2, ..., m_N (maybe stars, maybe atoms, doesn't really matter) at distances r_1, r_2, r_N = (x_1, y_1, z_1), (x_2, y_2, z_2), ..., (x_N, y_N, z_N) from our test force. Then we just sum up all the components:

f = sum[i = 1..N]{ G * m_i * r_i/||r_i||^3 } where we use the vector form of Newton's law of gravitation (r is a vector, ||r|| is the length of that vector).

Now let's consider the galactic center. There are thought to be about ten million stars within a parsec of Saggitarius A* (the "black hole"/"black eye"). Let's forget about all of those for the time being and see if the rest of the galaxy can pull hard enough to matter.

The mass of the whole galaxy is about 3*10^42 kg. Some of it pulls one way, some the other--it cancels out a bit. Let's pretend it doesn't cancel out at all! This is super incredibly wrong--our force will be way way too big, but let's do it anyway.

f = sum[i == 1..N]{ G * m_i * 1/||r_i||^2 }

Now d is small compared to a parsec, so for the far stars, we can write how much the force changes over a distance d as

df_i = G * m_i *(1/r_i^2)(1 - 1/(1 + d/r_i)^2 ~= G * m_i * d/r_i^3

df = sum[i = 1..N]{ df_i }

How far away is the rest of the galaxy, on average? How about we...just...put it all one parsec away!!! (If you want to know where stuff actually is, look at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.4758.pdf, especially Figure 7.) It's mostly thousands of parsecs away. But never mind! Just put it one parsec away, right at the edge of what we define as the galactic core.

One parsec is 3*10^16 meters, d was 5*10^10 meters, G is 7*10^-11 m^3/(kg*s^2), and all the m_i's together are 3*10^42 kg. (Not counting dark matter.)

Multiply it all together and we get

df = 0.0000004 Newtons

Oh. Huh. That's pretty much nothing.

Space is big.

So, the stuff outside the galactic core is irrelevant. No fierce eye whirlpool things from that. You're asking for a nuclear bomb; you got a match.

Let's try the stuff inside the galactic core. There are around 10 million stars according to Wikipedia, and let's say they're all really really big (100 solar masses), so that's a billion solar masses just in the core. This is a ridiculous overestimate, but hey, we're giving Model B every advantage and then some. The closest known star gets about 13 AU (2*10^12 meters), and we'll say the mass is equally spread out by distance from there to one parsec (3*10^16 meters)--which is also ridiculous, as there's more space farther away, but hey, it's in Model B's favor. So, we have 2*10^39 kg spread out evenly along 3*16^16 meters, for a linear density of 7*10^20 kg/m. Great! Now we put all the stars on one side, all pulling the same way, to get the strongest effect possible (of course, in reality they'd be pulling in all different directions, mostly canceling out). And we do the integral of the force:

df_close = Integral[r = 2*10^12 .. 3*10^16]{ 7*10^-11 * 7*10^20 * 5*10^10 / r^3 } = 2.5*10^21 * (-(1/2)1/r^2)|r=2*10^12..3*10^16) ~= 2.5*10^21 / 8*10^24 = 0.0003 Newtons.

Well crud. All those stars don't do much of anything either across the scale of the eye.

In contrast, with Model A, you put 4 million solar masses inside the eye and the difference in force across the 50 billion meters is 2 * 7*10^-11 * 8*10^36 / (2.5*10^10)^2 = 1.8 million Newtons

Now that's the kind of thing you need to trap light.

So, there we go. You are ten orders of magnitude off from possibly having the kind of effect that you want, under ridiculously absurdly generous conditions.

Furthermore, the entire scheme is literally mathematically impossible because of the shape of the potential and the mathematics of Laplace's equation.

Model B fails so, so, so, so, so badly that of course no astrophysicist ought to consider it. They don't even have to think about it for more than a fraction of a second to know that it's ridiculous. I am not an astrophysicist and I know it's ridiculous in a fraction of a second.

tl;dr--(1) your model is mathematically impossible and (2) if it weren't, it would still be at least billions of times too weak to do what you say.

Structural thinking is not what scientists are lacking. It's a standard part of the toolkit. Happens all the time.

However, taking subjects seriously is what you are lacking.