In the published method the countermarked coins (C) are taken to be "Early to Middle Issues of Ptolemy IV", i.e., within 221-204 BC. Then, since the countermark is known to occur on other coins of Ptolemy IV that have a wide variety of different control marks, it was concluded that the episode of countermarking occurred late in the reign of Ptolemy IV (i.e., shortly before c.207-206 BC).
However, this approach overlooked that there are known examples of coins of Ptolemy V and Ptolemy VI that also show the same countermark. Thus the earliest time for the countermarking must be after the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy VI, i.e., after 180 BC (see Parts 4 and 5a).
The published attribution assumed that the social revolt of c.207-206 BC was related to the monetary reform and that it gave the latest point in time for the reform, i.e., "The revolt of the ch˘ra [provincial territory] provides a terminus ad quem". It was concluded that "it seems safest to date the reform very shortly before the revolt, c.207-206, while leaving open the possibility that it occurred a year or two earlier".
However, an assumption of a relationship to a historical event is not evidence for a relationship. Rather, the hoard data should be interpreted without regard to historical events and only then can events be reasonably discussed in the light of conclusions gained from the hoard.