So the campaign did not trust the DNC so they asked for lots of changes in the standard agreement (the “fine print” mentioned by the NYT in the article you posted) and the DNC did not initially want to go with the proposal that the Clinton campaign created (per the Politico article that you posted) - so it sounds like you’ve made my case - thanks for sharing. Bottom line - the document you pointed is just the standard form and not the true Joint Fundraising Agreement. Donna Brazile clearly has access to the final document and there is absolutely no evidence to falsify her claims (made more credible since she is a longtime Clinton ally).
You also seem to have a misimpression of the debate scheduling issue and why it was important to the O’Malley and Sanders campaigns. It wasn’t just a matter of scheduling prime time events. The Clinton campaign actually restricted the number of debates and more importantly, had the DNC create an exclusivity arrangement so that even if Sanders and O’Malley wanted to debate each other without Clinton - they were specifically prohibited from doing so. For candidates with much less name recognition - that is definitely considered a “rig”.
Some specific DNC email lists were provided only to the Clinton campaign because of the JFA (while normally that wouldn’t be shared until there was a nominee chosen) - that can be used not just for fundraising but also for primary campaigning - another “rig”
The fact that Brazile gave her primary debate questions to the Clinton campaign was another “rig”
The accusation by Brazile that non-battleground state funds raised by the Victory Fund were sent to be deposited in state accounts to make them legal then transferred to the DNC and then transferred to the Clinton campaign accounts while the primaries were still going on is definitely a “rig” (even if they held onto them to be used in the general election campaign). Overall Brazile made it clear that the idea that the money going into the Victory Fund during the primary season would not really be available to any one besides Clinton if they became the nominee as was announced at the time.
The accusation by Brazile that the JFA allowed the Clinton campaign to control some staffing positions is also a “rig” (though overblown since those same folks were already in her camp).
The accusation by Brazile that DWS made decisions on her own in conjunction with the Clinton campaign and kept even the DNC officers out of the loop on important financial matters like this JFA also indicates a “rig” (though Brazille has a personal interest in saying she was out of the loop on this stuff).
The DNC changed the rules in February 2016 (put in place by Obama’s team) about accepting money from lobbyists - yet another “rig” against Bernie’s campaign.
The DNC sends out lots of mail to registered Democrats with those mailings often containing so-called “push poll surveys” as a way to attract funds. I received some of those in late 2015 and during the primary season in 2016 and they were all written from the point of view of Clinton Campaign policy positions - (e.g. questions about health care that did not even mention single payer as an option) - again another “rig”
I believe these things are inappropriate for a national committee to do despite their legality and despite the fact that Bernie was able to adeptly counter them with an anti-establishment campaign. But note that these “rigs” also hurt Martin O’Malley’s campaign and he did not run the kind of campaign that could counter them.