Interesting you blame Faresaver. Don't forget that First only run/ran evening and sunday services under contract in the main. When Wilts Council withdrew the funding for the 234 evening service First withdrew the service, surely you don't expect Faresaver to run it at a loss with no support ?
First only normally operate Sunday and evening services in Wiltshire when they are paid to do it. Don't forget too that Faresaver grew on the back of operating the 231, 234, 265, 271/2, evening and Sunday services at the outset. This along with town services that First were not interested in running. First opened the door to Faresaver and once their foot was in the door it was never going to leave.
When Faresaver started operating the 231 evening and sunday services under contract back in the early 1990's, First were runnning a half hourly daytime service on the 231 corridor. Faresaver started operating a more direct daytime service in competition during the day, yes with Mercedes midibuses but lets face it, First were using circa 1975 Bristol VR's until the late 1990's on the corridor (almost 25 years old), no wonder people voted with their feet. Over time Faresaver improved the timetable filling in the gaps, and tweaked the route. Now there is a 20 minute frequency with modern vehicles.
Also did Faresaver drive First off the 635 corridor, the 228 service, the Corsham Town 10 service, the Trowbridge 60 service, the 237, the 272 Melksham Devizes etc ? No, First dropped those services without any encouragement from Faresaver or anyone else.
Sorry but I am going to have to correct you on a few issues
First of all, I wasn't saying that First didn't operate the 234 of an evening commercially NOR that Faresaver should do so. However, they essentially dislodged First from that route who then withdrew everything - however, did Faresaver then strike a deal with Wiltshire Council to replace First? No. Should First have had to try and run an evening service when they didn't have the daytime? Probably difficult to achieve
The other examples that you mention. Well, the 237 was a variant of the 234 at one time, both running two hourly to give an hourly frequency. First took the decision to run the 234 hourly and then run the 237. The latter proved not to be viable - of course, Faresaver operate over that route but is it supported? Yes it is. The other examples you give were also tendered IIRC. As for the 635, that was lost on tender by First and, of course, Faresaver ran it but have since surrendered part of it.
The 272 to Devizes WAS most certainly precipitated by Faresaver who ran a commercial off peak service from Melksham to Bath. That undermined the First service so they cut it back back - it was a direct cause and effect.
Take your point on the age of the Badgerline fleet on the 231 etc and yes, Wiltshire was the poor relation. Lack of investment nationally in the 1980s did mean that many a route was forced to continue on with older fleet than it would've done and Wiltshire seemed to be bottom of the list. You could say the same with W&D using VRs on the 5/6/7/8 before the first Spectras began arriving in 1993 or Swindon and District using knackered Nationals on the X55. However, I'd concede the Badgerline fleet was worse than W&D or C&G.
However, using that as a justification for Faresaver (e.g. they exploited complacency on those routes) wasn't the case when Faresaver decided to mix it with Stagecoach from Chippers to Calne. Nor was it when they competed on the Whiteway service. Nor was it when they introduced the X72 - First were using 2005 Darts at that point. What Faresaver did, and I recognise the strength of the model, was to get schools and college work with ageing minis and use that as a competitive tool supported with some all day working. It is simple and effective and they outmanoeuvred First who sat on their hands (in comparison with Stagecoach's merciless response).
As for Faresaver "at the outset", I remember them in Fosseway days and their reliance on council work and their removal from such work!
