About Goldbach's conjecture
I think it could be a safe assumption that this is not equivalent to RH in a simple way (assuming the other assertions of the question are true).
Here is why: to show that RH implies Goldbach (at least asymptotically) is not at all an unnatural idea, which however as far as I know is open.
For example, in 'Refinements of Goldbach's Conjecture, and the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis' Granville discusses questions close to this. However, it seems to me that the asymptotic counts of the number of solutions to 'the Goldbach equations' are related to the RH (and GRH).
Another example would be Deshouillers, Effinger, te Riele, Zinoviev 'A complete Vinogradov $3$-primes theorem under the Riemann hypothesis. Electron. Res. Announc. Amer. Math. Soc. 3 (1997), 99–104.' who showed that ternary Goldbach follows from GRH. This is less directly related as ternary Goldbach is long known asymptotically, and this is thus about eliminating 'small' counterexamples.
So, it just seems more than a bit unlikely that 'RH implies asymptotic Goldbach' can be solved with a half-page argument and an equivalence argument direct enough that somebody might simply supply it here.
In addition, despite an explicit request (made a while ago) there is still no information/evidence provided why this should be equivalent to RH, which I interpret as the absence of any such evidence.
Finally, since being equivalent is a bit of a vague notion (if both were true they were equivalent even if totally unrelated) and since this is too long for a comment anyway, I thought I give these generalities as an answer.