Hi, apparently it's not a matter of trying different SFP Transceivers...provided that - on both ends - you're going to use (a) matching types of fiber optic transceivers and (b) transceivers supported on each respective Switch,/Module.
What I see is that, on Aruba 5400R zl2 side, you configured a Trunk logical interface (Trk1) interface with just a single physical interface as a member (d24)...while, on Aruba CX side, you just defined a single physical interface (1/1/28)...this asymmetric approach suggests me that you "misunderstood" the meaning of a Trunk interface on Aruba 5400R zl2 side...where Trunk means really a Links Aggregation (which naturally requires a matching LAG as a peer on the remote side). Unfortunately "Trunk" has two very different meanings because your two Switches' OSes (ArubaOS-CX and ArubaOS-Switch) use a different grammar.
ArubaOS-CX -> a physical or logical interface can operate in "trunk mode" carrying more VLAN tags (a VLAN native generally considered untagged with or without one or more additional VLAN tagged configured as allowed, as example) generally use for switch to switch or switch to server inter-connection; the other operating mode is named access mode mode and it implies only one VLAN membership (untagged or tagged) referred to the Native VLAN (also called PVID or Port VLAN Id) and it is used generally for edge device connection.
ArubaOS-Switch -> an interface can simply be a member of one VLAN (minimum one VLAN mandatorily = it can't be simply left orphaned of A VLAN membership) or many VLANs (one or more VLANs tagged with one VLAN untagged OR one or more VLANs tagged only without any untagged membership).
Given the above try to remove the trk1 interface and start working with the d24 physical only directly.
Different is the case where, on both ends, you want to use LAGs (Links Aggregations with two or more member interfaces)...if so, your current configuration needs to be adjusted accordingly (a) on Aruba CX side (I see no LAG) and (b) you need another fiber optic link to pair with the existing one...but I don't believe this is what you really wanted to deploy.