Thank you for asking. Seriously, I appreciate the courtesy and forethought.
Having said that, hypotheticals and alternate history are usually out of scope. History deals with what actually happened. Once we start considering what might have happened, then all opinions are equally valid, and it isn't possible to select an authoritative answer.
The community seems slightly more tolerant of hypothetical questions in the scope of military history. Not my field, but I gather that is an accepted part of the discipline, and there are conventions about how to analyze the forces that constrain the outcomes of military conflicts.
If you are really interested, you may be able to construct the question along the lines of analyzing the forces/constraints/historical trends that governed a situation. We cannot answer what would have happened if Washington had decided not to attend the Continental Congress. We can however discuss the economic and political strength of pro-union and anti-union forces in the colonies at the time. We can analyze the forces that affected the Articles and be relatively safe in predicting that the Articles would not survive. We can discuss what contemporaries believed about the prognosis, and the plausibility.
In my opinion, the critical factor is "Can we identify an authoritative answer?" If all answers are equally valid, then the question is out of scope. Even if most of the answers are clearly wrong, but there are a set of potentially plausible answers, then the question will probably be out of scope.
I hope that helps.