Sorry but you have a basic misunderstanding of what angular velocity is, radius has no effect on it, none, nada. That why it is measured in angle unit per time, not a distance unit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity
Constant rotational frequency does indeed translate in to constant angular velocity. This is basic stuff, I'm quite surprised you've got so far through the theory to a result without understanding the basics.
That's why when you put in 5000rpm to one of the many, many online calcs, you get an angular velocity output (523rad/s) with no mention of radius anywhere.
https://www.calculator.org/properties/angular_velocity.html
The example demonstrates how you are getting confused. If you use linear velocity instead of angular, the linear equations work, however, earlier on you're mixing the two and using both rotational inertia, and linear velocity, this doesn't work. Which is what leads you to a conclusion where energy is not conserved across the examples (this should have been a red flag to you early on).