Indeed it does, which is why they changed it as soon as they could honestly say it.
Wrong. You said that the July resolution was "was not unanimously agreed to."
Did they identify it as a unanimously agreed resolution at any time prior to New York's decision? If they did, show it.
Given that it was several weeks before the engrossed copy of the Declaration was ordered and ready for signatures, your point is historically trivial.
The only reason you call it trivial is the fact that you don't like its implications. It is hardly a trivial matter though considering that the July 4th Dunlap Broadside, and not the more famous formal presentation copy from a month later, is the one they sent to King George (two copies of it still exist in the holdings of the British government). Nor is the famous presentaiton copy the one that was officially entered into the record. The official one was signed by John Hancock and the secretary on the 4th and carried over to Dunlap's print show that evening for distribution. It was replaced in the record with a Dunlap copy that then became the engrossed one and resides to this day in the national archives.
So is this your weak attempt at suggesting the Declaration is of less importance or value because the title was changed after two weeks? That it is of less value because it was sent from the Continental Congress to George?
"Did they identify it as a unanimously agreed resolution at any time prior to New York's decision? If they did, show it."
Do a google search on the Stan Klos website and look for the Declaration of Independence page. I recall there is a image which shows the text of the Lee resolution for Independence (July 2), with the clerk's tally of the votes [all "A" (aye), no "N" (nay)]. That is a unanimous vote on the resolution under the rules of the Continental Congress. An abstention is not a "no" vote.