The Book Switch Theory

[asteckley]

most historical documents do not present other forms of evidence that contradict the conclusions suggested by handwriting analysis.

This evidence that contradicts the conclusion suggested by handwriting analysis, is any of it strong enough to be marked green on this chart?

As I said before in this thread: "...the intent of the diagram is "provenance" specifically -- who owned it and where it's been.  Not evidence for or against possible origin theories. A different --much larger-- diagram regarding such general evidence around VMS origins is in progress."
Obviously,  the things you are asking if should be green, are therefore not part of that diagram.

The diagram contains precisely those things that constitute relevant evidence to the ownership/stewarship provenance and nothing more. That is completely intentional and necessary, because the main purpose of the diagram is to clarify what is actually known vs only inferred (and which has become erroneously claimed as fact). And to thereby illustrate how the standard provenance theory is critically dependent on a single assumption -- namely, that the words of "this book" in the Marci Letter refer to the VMS. If those words do not refer to that particular book, then a large part of the standard provenance story becomes very weak and circumstantial at best.

If the diagram has missed some relevant evidence for who owned the VMS and where it's physically been, then please describe what that is -- I asked for such feedback earlier. But please don't, as has been done often before in these discussions, confuse speculative elements of a supporting story with actual evidence on which the facts of the provenance are based.

Also notice that some circularity has snuck into the exercise. Some aspects are excluded or downgraded based on Santacoloma-esque theories. And the finished diagram will then be used to support those theories.

Who knows how the finished diagram will ultimately be used? If it has implications on anyone's favorite origin theory, so be it. Its purpose is simply to illustrate an important issue: how solid evidence and more uncertain inferences have often been blended together to produce a narrative that is frequently treated as established fact. And the precariousness of the situation which, in turn, is relevant to this thread (the "Book Switch Theory").

The diagram was not created with any particular theory in mind about where or by whom the VMS was produced. You (and Rene), however, seem to be interpreting it through that lens, and your comments read as though they are motivated by a need to defend a specific theory.