Doesn't make the rearrangement-with-intent-to-manipulate-post-shuffle-order okay.
On what basis is it not okay? If it doesn't affect the game state, who cares? Can't a person have a superstition that doesn't harm someone else? As above, if I play Mine correctly while believing I'm cheating, is that not okay? On what basis?
Edit: Setting aside the extreme situation in which the person looks like they are cheating/slows down the game.
I suppose you didn't actually look at
the link, even though you said you were trying to introduce those ideas earlier?
According to the law, factual impossibility is still wrong. To quote from the site:
Factual Impossibility: Factual impossibility has not to my knowledge ever been recognized as a defense to an attempt charge by any American court. The common law did not consider factual impossibility as a defense to attempt. Thus, one would be liable for attempted theft when, with intent to steal another's wallet, he places his hand in the other's pocket only to find it empty. The MPC does not recognize factual impossibility as a defense to attempt, nor does Texas.
In the context of Dominion, this is parallel to reordering your discard to try to give yourself an advantage. In the end, shuffling means that you really don't get an advantage, but your attempt at getting an edge is still wrong.
Your example about trying to cheat with Mine but ending up playing it correctly is an example of True Legal Impossibility, which is distinct from Factual Impossibility scenarios. Again, from the linked site:
True Legal Impossibility: The common law, the Model Penal Code and Texas, indeed every jurisdiction, will certainly recognize so-called true legal impossibility (Dressler calls it "pure") in attempt cases when it is simply not a crime to do what the defendant intended to do. In other words, an intent to commit an act which is not characterized as a crime by the laws of the subject jurisdiction can not be the basis of a criminal charge and conviction even though the actor believes or misapprehends the intended act to be criminalized by the penal laws. For example, if a fisherman believes he is committing an offense by possessing over five perch when in fact there is no limit on the number of perch one may catch, it is legally impossible to convict the fisherman of possessing more than five perch. The fisherman's conduct would be perfectly legal despite the fact that he believes and intends to possess more perch that he is entitled to possess. Since the conduct would be perfectly legal, the fisherman could not be held accountable for attempting to violate a law that did not exist. Again, I believe Professor Dressler in his UCL book calls this "pure legal impossibility."
So even though you play Mine with the intent to cheat, your play is still perfectly legal and is fine (despite being, perhaps, morally questionable).
Now in the context of your particular discard habits, you say you have no intent to cheat, so you are also in the clear. The only question then is, why care about your discard order at all? As others have stated numerous times, at best it has no effect and at worst it is stalling, or cheating, or appearing to cheat.