You've not spotted that "justified" is a matter of paradigmatic coherence.
Epistemic realism posits that justification tracks truth. So if evidentialism or reliablism generate true non relative
facts, they only do so because the theory itself is coherent with an absolute notion of truth.
The word "truth" adds nothing to agreed justification methods.
Justification methods, like I have already said, only make sense if justification tracks truth. It is like asking whether the earth orbits sun- either it does or it doesn't.
The relativist claims that the earth does orbit about around the sun, but this is only true relative to an epistemic framework. However, this claim itself is self defeating
because the claim itself is relative to a proposed framework. I could ask what justifies that? It holds no more weight than the assertion that the earth is flat. relativistic notions of truth regress ad infinitum.
If you simply think agreement does the basic justifcatory work then you fall into the rejection I make in the OP. Why should mere acceptance
justify what is reasonable to believe? It is a completely unjustified assumption. By contrast, we have reason to believe some things are true because the beliefs themselves are justified according to what is in fact true. At least some facts require abosolute truth-not everything is relative.
I'm still waiting for you to name an absolutist epistemologist !
Anyone who adheres to evidentialism or reliabilism would be epistemic realists.