You're all wrong.
Lift is generated by inverse proportion to the lightening of the operators wallet. The bigger and heavier the flying machine, the more money is required to make it fly.
There's also an attraction between the heavens and pretty flying machines. This is why gliders in particular need relatively little money lightening to make them fly - and conversely helicopters (which are amongst the ugliest machines invented by man) require a great deal - and tanks on the other hand won't fly however much you spend.
Weight also plays a part - since clearly the heavier an aircraft is, the more lift is needed, and thus the more money. So, microlights are cheaper to run than 2-seat light aeroplanes, and proportionally 4 or 6 seat aeroplanes are more expensive again - even if they all look as pretty.
Now my serious point. I've been working in aviation for a couple of decades, have several degrees in it and even more flying licences - and frankly I don't really know what makes an aeroplane generate lift (20 years ago, I thought I knew!). What I do know is how to predict whether it will or not, and how well. Depending upon circumstance, I pick the model that suits the job - even occasionally the rubbish I've just posted above. They are all correct - up to a point.
If you want to see the more complicated ones - such as vorticity theory, Glauert's lifting line theory, or more obscure stuff that requires serious computing power to cope with at-all, I have an office full of books on it that you're welcome to come and read. The problem is, they're all right.
So pick an explanation that does the job and makes sense (N3 or Bernoulli are both fine), and use it for as long as it continues to do so.
G