Can Abhidhamma be reconciled with Sutta? Citta & vinnana

This question could comprise of many examples but here I will choose one and only four aspects of this one example. The Abhidhamma says: > Rūpakkhandho anārammaṇo. 530.2Cattāro khandhā sārammaṇā. > 530.3**Viññāṇakkhandho cittaṁ**. 530.4Cattāro khandhā no cittā. 530.5Tayo khandhā cetasikā. 530.6Dve khandhā acetasikā. 530.7Tayo khandhā > cittasampayuttā. 530.8Rūpakkhandho cittavippayutto. > 530.9Viññāṇakkhandho na vattabbo— 530.10“cittena sampayutto”tipi, “cittena vippayutto”tipi. 530.11**Tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhā**. > 530.12Rūpakkhandho cittavisaṁsaṭṭho. 530.13Viññāṇakkhandho na vattabbo— 530.14“cittena saṁsaṭṭho”tipi, “cittena visaṁsaṭṭho”tipi. > 530.15Tayo khandhā cittasamuṭṭhānā. 530.16**Viññāṇakkhandho no cittasamuṭṭhāno**. 530.17Rūpakkhandho siyā cittasamuṭṭhāno, siyā no > cittasamuṭṭhāno. 530.18Tayo khandhā cittasahabhuno. > 530.19**Viññāṇakkhandho no cittasahabhū**. 530.20Rūpakkhandho siyā cittasahabhū, siyā no cittasahabhū. 530.21Tayo khandhā > cittānuparivattino. 530.22**Viññāṇakkhandho no cittānuparivatti**. > 530.23Rūpakkhandho siyā cittānuparivatti, siyā no cittānuparivatti. 530.24Tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānā. 530.25Dve khandhā no cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānā. 530.26Tayo khandhā > cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānasahabhuno. 530.27Dve khandhā no > cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānasahabhuno. 530.28Tayo khandhā > cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānānuparivattino. 530.29Dve khandhā no > cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānānuparivattino. > > 531.1Viññāṇakkhandho ajjhattiko. 531.2Tayo khandhā bāhirā. 531.3Rūpakkhandho siyā ajjhattiko, siyā bāhiro. > > The aggregate of form has no object. Four aggregates have objects. **The > aggregate of consciousness is consciousness**. Four aggregates are not > consciousness. Three aggregates are volitional activities. Two > aggregates are not volitional activities. Three aggregates are > associated with consciousness. The aggregate of form is not associated > with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness should not be said > to be, associated with consciousness or not associated with > consciousness. **Three aggregates are conjoined with consciousness**. The > aggregate of form is not conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate > of consciousness should not be said to be, conjoined with > consciousness or not conjoined with consciousness. Three aggregates > are generated by consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness is not > generated by consciousness. The aggregate of form sometimes is > generated by consciousness; sometimes is not generated by > consciousness. Three aggregates are co-existent with consciousness. > **The aggregate of consciousness is not co-existent with consciousness**. > The aggregate of form sometimes is co-existent with consciousness; > sometimes is not co-existent with consciousness. Three aggregates > accompany consciousness. **The aggregate of consciousness does not accompany consciousness**. The aggregate of form sometimes accompanies > consciousness; sometimes does not accompany consciousness. Three > aggregates are conjoined with, generated by consciousness. Two > aggregates are not conjoined with, not generated by consciousness. > Three aggregates are conjoined with, generated by, co-existent with > consciousness. Two aggregates are not conjoined with, not generated > by, not co-existent with consciousness. Three aggregates are conjoined > with, generated by, accompany consciousness. Two aggregates are not > conjoined with, not generated by, do not accompany consciousness. > > https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila If we ignore the literal translation, the above appears to say: 1. Consciousness aggregate is citta (viññāṇakkhandho cittaṁ). 2. Three aggregates (feeling, perception and mental formations) are conjoined with citta (tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhā). 3. Consciousness does not co-exist with citta (viññāṇakkhandho no cittasahabhū). 4. The aggregate of consciousness does not accompany citta (viññāṇakkhandho no cittānuparivatti). Are there any suttas that support the above Abhidhamma and also are there any suttas that refute the above Abhidhamma?