In addition to his mathematical error,
when we have lots of precedence...
But notice you've played right into Craig's hand, because the impetus of his objection is essentially that a rejection of the resurrection claim in this manner does not sufficiently respect the relevant background information that we have.
So, Craig would agree with you!
The lottery-pick report is not considerably extraordinary given all the relevant factors that play into assessing the probability of an event (as he explicitly says, in fact), like you allude to with several points of reasoning to in effect, raise the probability of a reliable news report…
And notice you even qualified such background evidence as "normal"- certainly not, by definition, "extraordinary"- in which case you as well have succeeded in showing the trope, demonstrably false, given your scenario did not require any extraordinary evidence by your own admission.
I don't know if I have misunderstood your counter to William Lane Craig's response to the often-used expression that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," nor do I recall seeing the video you referenced, but if I'm not mistaken, William Lane Craig goes into some detail over this in his book 'Reasonable Faith,' and what he is talking about is not his own mathematical calculations.
On page 273 of that book, Craig says: There is a slogan beloved in the free thought subculture that "extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence."
In order to establish the occurrence of a highly improbable event, one need not have lots of evidence."
And he bases that statement on an example of Baye's Theorem on page 271.
What is the plainest and simplest evidence you would need to know that I was alive? All you would need would be to see me up and about walking around. No extraordinary evidence required.
Even if I had been dead before, one look at me would settle the matter that I was now alive.
At any rate, W.L. Craig's statement is not based on any mathematical calculations.
Perhaps he can be found in error on some other basis, but it has nothing to do with any probability calculation mistakes he has made because that's not what he's basing his statements on.