The Fundamental Paradox of the Standard Model

[osewalrus]

The more proof we have that the "Standard Model" of the Big Bang and creation of the universe is correct, the more difficult it is to understand why the universe exists at all.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/universe-shouldn-t-exist-cern-physicists-conclude

 

Under the Standard Model, the Big Bang should have created equal parts matter and anti-matter, and thus annihilated itself on inception. But it clearly didn't. The more evidence we collect that the Standard Model is correct in other predictions (e.g., the recent photographs of strings of "dark matter" between galaxies, recent observation of gravity waves and production of heavy elements from the collision from neutron stars), the more puzzling it is that the universe exists at all.

This also raises an interesting problem of epistemology.  At what point do we conclude the Standard Model is wrong (or incomplete) v. looking for some difference between matter and anti-matter that could explain why some small bit of matter survived to create the universe as we know it?