Yes, but this makes this a drastically different case than say the Spezia scandal. A case can be made for both sides. I think it should have stood, but I probably wouldn't if it was the other way around. Or maybe even then I would've laughed at the luck of such a bad call from VAR. If a decision is debatable then it's not scandalous.
It could have changed the game, but so could 4-5 of the big chances we failed to convert.
The original VAR review was over a handball that was nonexistant. It would seem they were looking for a reason to disallow a goal.
"The other way around" test is dubious to me. Other way around, I want everything to go Milan's way. However, even more importantly for this test,
when have Milan benefitted from such a dubious call this year? When Giroud stole the ball in the derby against Sanchez, people
delighted in thinking they had one, but then, it turned out, with
mountains of video evidence, that their great hope wasn't there.
The day Milan gets to kick the shit out of people without VAR hitting them like Inter against Empoli or Torino (for all to see) is the day we can apply the "other way round" test.
In light of the above, I tire of talk about what Milan should have done. Yes, we should have scored more, but I think the decision altered the course of the game. Personally, I think scoring the 1st away goal, in the 63rd minute, at 2-1, when previous derbies showed that Inter get nervy and collapse in second halves, that decision impacts the game. People look at 3-0 and shrug. Looking at the context of the decision matters.