[[What evolution claims is that there can be simpler versions of systems that have function. Not necessarily even the same function. Just function.]]
So what you are admitting is that unique species can and do have simpler versions, but more complex species have irreducibly complex blood clotting cascades?
There was a test on mice that knocked out Fibrinogen and some other element, the mice did survive, however they were severely ill, and had no way of clotting, which meant any nick would have been fatal. When just one was knocked out, it was fatal, but when both were knocked out it wasn’t immediately fatal, and when a mouse missing one was mated with a mouse missing hte other, it did produce offspring which didn’t immediately die, but was susceptible to hemmoraging.
Bottom line- to prove that these IC elements aren’t necessary in in complex creatures, you have to show a link between complex creatures and simpler ones like hte jawless fish/lampreys, or whales and dolphins- and htese creatures are netirely different than land dwelling vertebrates- pointing to their unique clotting devices, and claiming our more complex clotting cascades, which involve over 30 different chemical reactions, and 12 very complicated and precise steps for clotting, isn’t a valid argument ot make for ‘the evolution of clotting complexity’ UNLESS you have evidence linking all creatures. Pointing to minor homological similarities has been shown to be an invalid comparison for many reasons, and mainly because similar mechanisms do totally different functions, and arise in totally unique and different manners and can’t be explained htrough common descent.
If simpler versions work, the structure isn't irreducible. If you take the monitor from your computer, you can't use the computer. That does not mean that earlier versions of monitors with fewer features didn't work.
You take the keystone out of a Roman arch, it falls down. That does not mean the arch was poofed into place in one step.