A–Jesus was crucified.
B–His tomb was discovered empty of his body.
C–Resurrection became an explanation for the tomb being empty.
Here you go astray. While your chronological sequence is correct, you are implying a logical sequence that is not required. Note, for example, that the believers to whom Jesus appeared on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24 knew about the empty tomb, but did not conclude that this implied Jesus’ resurrection. Only when He identified Himself to them and declared His resurrection did they begin to think in those terms. Thus Jesus’ resurrection appearances chronologically followed discovery of the empty tomb but were not caused by it.
D–There were no claims to any appearances of the Risen Jesus prior to the tomb’s discovery.
Why would there be? Jesus rose from the tomb on the third day. The women went to the tomb at sunrise on the third day. For Jesus to have appeared before then would have him appearing before the third day rather than on the third day.
E–One person, Peter, began to claim to others that Jesus had appeared to him.
That’s not what we read in Luke 24.
F–Stories about other appearances began to circulate, although we don’t have much first hand evidence as to what others actually claimed about these appearances. They are simply anecdotal in nature.
We know that they claimed He was alive. And that is the central point.
Thus your A-F sequence is a combination of some facts and some innuendo, arranged to imply your thesis: that Peter made up the resurrection story and convinced enough others that the entire Christian movement originated from this deception, and that Jesus was not raised at all. Taken together, it’s insufficiently factual and insufficiently plausible.
And you still haven’t told me why you think the Bible is reliable when, for example, it says that the tomb was empty but not reliable when it says Jesus appeared to the disciples.