The difference is probably too subtle to make a difference.
I consider the Cheshire thesis to be disproven, and equally most other translations.
Problem is that there always remain several people who don't believe the proof, and others who don't understand it. (Note that Cheshire has followers who believe he is right).
Many of the provenance theories are untestable so they can neither be proven nor disproven.
Exceptions are those cases where they violate either the 15th Century provenance or the presence of the book in Prague for at least half a century. Or in fact both.
These I think one can consider to be disproven.
But is it proof if many people don't believe it?
I consider the Cheshire thesis to be disproven, and equally most other translations.
Problem is that there always remain several people who don't believe the proof, and others who don't understand it. (Note that Cheshire has followers who believe he is right).
Many of the provenance theories are untestable so they can neither be proven nor disproven.
Exceptions are those cases where they violate either the 15th Century provenance or the presence of the book in Prague for at least half a century. Or in fact both.
These I think one can consider to be disproven.
But is it proof if many people don't believe it?